United States of America v. Reginald Hilton Belton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6952
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD HILTON BELTON,
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-00113-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00342-FL)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025
Before THACKER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Hilton Belton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Hilton Belton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion raising numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims and
other challenges to his conviction and sentence. 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, 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 Belton has not made
the requisite showing. In large part, Belton cannot overcome his statements at the Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 hearing regarding his satisfaction with counsel and agreement that he had
sufficient time to consult with counsel. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 U.S. 216, 220
(4th Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, we conclude that Belton has not demonstrated that he was
prejudiced by any alleged errors. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688, 694 (1984).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --