United States of America v. Dwight Ulmer, a/k/a Saybro

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6776
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWIGHT ULMER, a/k/a Saybro,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00131-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00328-FL)
Submitted: January 3, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025
Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight Ulmer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dwight Ulmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ulmer’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 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 Ulmer has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ulmer’s motion for 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 --