United States v. Shawndale Saunders , 459 F. App'x 222 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7321
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SHAWNDALE D. SAUNDERS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.    Frederick P. Stamp,
    Jr., Senior District Judge.  (5:08-cr-00026-FPS-JSK-1; 5:10-cv-
    00086-FPS-JSK)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011            Decided:   December 20, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shawndale D. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.     John Castle Parr,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shawndale       Saunders        seeks       to    appeal      the     district
    court’s    order    accepting      the      recommendation          of   the    magistrate
    judge and denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp.
    2011) 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) (2006).                   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) (2006).                     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 Saunders 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7321

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 222

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Davis

Filed Date: 12/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024