United States v. Jamie Blunder

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6885 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6885 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMIE BLUNDER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00307-RJC-DCK-1; 3:24-cv- 00694-RJC) Submitted: July 24, 2025 Decided: July 28, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamie Blunder, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6885 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jamie Blunder seeks to appeal the district court’s 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 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Blunder 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 2