United States v. Dwight Ulmer

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6776 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6776 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWIGHT ULMER, a/k/a Saybro, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00131-FL-1; 5:22-cv-00328-FL) Submitted: January 3, 2025 Decided: March 31, 2025 Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwight Ulmer, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6776 Doc: 15 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Dwight Ulmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ulmer’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). 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 Ulmer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ulmer’s motion for 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 2