United States of America v. Gregory A. Milton, a/k/a G

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7316
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY A. MILTON, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:95-cr-70074-MFU-1)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: June 30, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (a) granting in part and
denying in part Milton’s authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; and
(b) adjudicating Milton’s postjudgment motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and
60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); see generally 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 Milton has not made
the requisite showing.∗ Accordingly, although we grant Milton’s motion to supplement his
∗ Milton correctly asserts that the district court erroneously dismissed his request for
Rule 60(b) relief as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion because, in that motion,
Milton challenged the integrity of the § 2255 proceedings; therefore, this was a “true” Rule
60(b) motion. See McRae, 793 F.3d at 397. In any event, Milton’s Rule 60(b) motion
nonetheless fails to state a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Specifically, the record conclusively establishes that the mandatory, consecutive life
sentence imposed on Milton’s 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction resulted from application of

-- 2 of 3 --

3
informal brief, 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
then-operative 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1)—not the challenged “three-strikes” designation under
18 U.S.C. § 3559(c).

-- 3 of 3 --