United States of America v. Kristopher Owen Daniels

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6096
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
KRISTOPHER OWEN DANIELS
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:14-cr-00105-FL-1; 7:19-cv-00015-
FL)
Submitted: May 19, 2023 Decided: May 24, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristopher Owen Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kristopher Owen Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Daniels’
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the denial of 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, 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 Daniels has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniels’ motion for bail or release pending
appeal, 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 --