United States of America v. RAYMOND BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6282
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAYMOND BULLETTE, III, a/k/a Scrap,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cr-00525-DKC-3; 8:17-cv-03284-
RWT)
Submitted: September 16, 2022 Decided: October 3, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Bullette, III, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Bullette, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s renewed order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to vacate the court’s prior order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.∗ The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see United States v.
McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). A certificate of appealability will not
issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74
(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must
demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion
states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.
134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bullette has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Bullette’s motion for leave to file
supplemental informal briefs, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
∗ We previously vacated the district court’s order denying this Rule 60(b) motion
and remanded so that Bullette could “elect between deleting his successive § 2255 claims
or having his entire motion treated as a successive § 2255 motion.” United States v.
Bullette, 816 F. App’x 880, 880 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-6086). Bullette elected to delete
his successive § 2255 claims.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --