United States v. Paul Dudley, Jr.

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6526 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6526

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PAUL DUDLEY, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:20-cr-00412-TDS-1; 1:23-cv- 00679-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025

Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Dudley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6526 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Dudley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on Dudley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion, and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 Dudley has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dudley’s pending motions, and 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