United States v. Kawshie Chapman

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Kawshie Chapman

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2025

Docket25-6744

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Kawshie Chapman (United States v. Kawshie Chapman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Kawshie Chapman, (4th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6744 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6744

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAWSHIE LAMAR CHAPMAN, a/k/a Kwa,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:22-cr-00025-FL-4; 7:24-cv-00769- FL)

Submitted: December 18, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025

Before NIEMEYER and BERNER, Circuit Judges, TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kawshie Lamar Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6744 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/23/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Kawshie Lamar Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Chapman’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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chapman 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI