United States v. Paul Dudley, Jr.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6526 Doc: 19 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6526 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PAUL DUDLEY, JR., Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2