United States of America v. Devonta Ozell Smith

22-7364Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit14.02.2024

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEVONTA OZELL SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00054-FL-1; 5:21-cv-00157-FL)
Submitted: January 10, 2024 Decided: February 13, 2024
Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devonta Ozell Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Devonta Ozell Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 showing that reasonable jurists could find the district
court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580
U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must show 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 Smith has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.