United States v. Chanel Faison , 589 F. App'x 166 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6946
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHANEL ELEASE FAISON, a/k/a Chanel Faison Faison,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith,
Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00004-RBS-TEM-2; 4:13-cv-00093-
RBS)
Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Chanel Elease Faison, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward
Bradenham, II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Kelly Kathleen Pearson, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John Curtis
Hanley, Kevin Louis Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Chanel Elease Faison seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Faison 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
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4