United States v. Sydney Crandon ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6111      Doc: 10         Filed: 12/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6111
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SYDNEY ANDREA CRANDON, a/k/a Brittany Banks,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00296-BO-1; 5:22-cv-00213-BO)
    Submitted: November 17, 2023                                  Decided: December 4, 2023
    Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sydney Andrea Crandon, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6111       Doc: 10         Filed: 12/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Sydney Andrea Crandon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
    Davis, 
    580 U.S. 100
    , 115-17 (2017). 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.
    Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crandon has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her motions for a certificate of
    appealability and to appoint counsel 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: 23-6111

Filed Date: 12/4/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/5/2023