United States v. Travina Hyman ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-7533
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TRAVINA ATARA HYMAN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:16-cr-00010-RAJ-LRL-1; 4:18-
    cv-00097-RAJ)
    Submitted: March 14, 2019                                         Decided: March 19, 2019
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Travina Atara Hyman, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Travina Atara Hyman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
    untimely 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 Hyman has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hyman’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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-7533

Filed Date: 3/19/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/19/2019