United States of America v. Ronald Shaw, a/k/a Fuzz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6313
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD SHAW, a/k/a Fuzz,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-6314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD SHAW, a/k/a Fuzz,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00033-JPB-JPM-1; 5:25-cv-
00049-JPB; 5:22-cr-00041-JPB-JPM-1; 5:25-cv-00048-JPB)
Submitted: February 27, 2026 Decided: March 10, 2026

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Shaw, Appellant Pro Se. Carly Cordaro Nogay, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Shaw seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Shaw’s 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, 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 was 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 Shaw has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --