US v. Daniel Suggs, No. 20-6079 (4th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL LEE SUGGS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:06-cr-00474-RBH-2; 4:16-cv-01545-RBH) Submitted: April 16, 2020 Decided: April 21, 2020 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Lee Suggs, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Lee Suggs seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Suggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Suggs’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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.