United States of America v. James Latron Sumter, a/k/a T

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6881
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES LATRON SUMTER, a/k/a T,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-6884
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES LATRON SUMTER, a/k/a T,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:18-cr-00772-RBH-1; 4:21-cv-
00079-RBH)
Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: August 25, 2023

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. 22-6881, dismissed; No. 22-6884, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Latron Sumter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
James Latron Sumter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion (No. 22-6881) and denying his postjudgment motion to dismiss
the indictment (No. 22-6884). The denial of Sumter’s § 2255 motion 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Sumter has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal as to the district court’s denial of Sumter’s § 2255 motion. As to
Sumter’s appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, we have reviewed
the district court’s decision and discern no reversible error. We therefore affirm that
portion of the district court’s order.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
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.
No. 22-6881, DISMISSED
No. 22-6884, AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --