DocketNumber: 20-6354
Filed Date: 10/19/2020
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2020
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6354 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHELLE BRYANT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:18-cr-00437-RBH-1; 4:19-cv-02692-RBH) Submitted: October 9, 2020 Decided: October 19, 2020 Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michelle Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michelle Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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,137 S. Ct. 759
, 773-74 (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 Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bryant’s motion to appoint counsel, 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