United States v. Bradford Allen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2023
• Docket: 19-7827
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7827 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRADFORD D VOL ALLEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:15-cr-00064-MOC-WCM-1; 1:19-cv- 00314-MOC)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradford D Vol Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-7827 Doc: 17 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Bradford D Vol Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Allen 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

∗ We held this case in abeyance for United States v. Waters, 64 F.4th 199, 201 (4th Cir. 2023), in which this court determined that the rule announced in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.