United States of America v. Lowell Anthony Knight, a/k/a Tee, a/k/a Ant, a/k/a Wockka Flocka

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7685
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOWELL ANTHONY KNIGHT, a/k/a Tee, a/k/a Ant, a/k/a Wockka Flocka,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cr-00062-RAJ-TEM-
1; 4:16-cv-00059-RAJ)
Submitted: March 25, 2022 Decided: July 15, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lowell Anthony Knight 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 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)).
Knight’s challenge to the validity of his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction is foreclosed
by our decision in United States v. Crawley, 2 F.4th 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that
§ 924(c) conviction is sound if it is expressly based on at least one valid predicate offense),
cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 819 (2022). 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 --