UNITED STATES v. DUNLAP (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.2021-07-02No. No. 21-6556

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right necessary to obtain a certificate of appealability.

Dunlap appealed the district court's dismissal of his § 2255 motion (a federal post-conviction petition) on the ground that it was successive and therefore unauthorized. To appeal such a dismissal, Dunlap needed to obtain a certificate of appealability from the appellate court, which requires demonstrating a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. Because the district court rejected the motion on procedural grounds rather than the merits, Dunlap had to show both that the procedural ruling was open to debate and that his underlying constitutional claim was also debatable.

After reviewing the record, the appellate court found that Dunlap failed to meet this standard. The court determined that neither the procedural dismissal nor the constitutional claim presented a genuinely debatable issue. Accordingly, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

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

Key issues

Requirements for a certificate of appealability in § 2255 appeals
Standard for establishing debatable constitutional claims when district court dismisses on procedural grounds
Successive and unauthorized habeas motions

Procedural posture

Dunlap appealed the district court's order dismissing his § 2255 motion as successive, seeking a certificate of appealability from the appellate court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Anttwaine Mandwell Dunlap seeks to appeal the district courts order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. 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, as here, 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, 132 S.Ct. 641, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dunlap 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.