United States v. Anne Chambers , 692 F. App'x 697 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6176
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANNE MARIE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Sugar, a/k/a Anne Marie Jack,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00089-REP-RCY-2; 3:16-
    cv-00370-REP-RCY)
    Submitted: June 22, 2017                                          Decided: June 27, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anne Marie Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States
    Attorney, David Vincent Harbach, II, Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anne Marie Chambers seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized.              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 Chambers 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6176

Citation Numbers: 692 F. App'x 697

Judges: Gregory, Floyd, Harris

Filed Date: 6/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024