UNITED STATES v. BROUGHTON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-08-09No. No. 20-6798

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because Broughton failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court's denial of his constitutional claims debatable or incorrect, and therefore a certificate of appealability does not issue.

Jonathan Simrell Broughton appealed the district court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. To proceed with an appeal in this context, Broughton was required to obtain a certificate of appealability from a circuit judge, which can only issue upon a showing that reasonable jurists could view the district court's rejection of his constitutional claims as debatable or incorrect. After independent review of the record, the appellate court found that Broughton failed to meet this threshold requirement for obtaining the certificate.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Requirements for obtaining a certificate of appealability in § 2255 appeals
Whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court's assessment of constitutional claims
Standard for appellate review of post-conviction relief denials

Procedural posture

Broughton sought appellate review of a district court order denying his § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Jonathan Simrell Broughton seeks to appeal the district courts order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Broughtons 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.” 28U.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 courts assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Broughton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.