United States v. Ava Ramey ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6159
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    AVA RAMEY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
    (8:12-cr-00309-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-00106-RWT)
    Submitted:   June 18, 2015                 Decided:   July 2, 2015
    Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ava Ramey, Appellant Pro Se.    Gregory P. Bailey, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ava     Ramey     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
    Ramey 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6159

Judges: Agee, Hamilton, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024