Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. State of South Carolina ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6628
MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00800-TLW)
Submitted: March 27, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 petition 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 Assa’ad-Faltas has
not made the requisite showing. We deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motions for appointment of
counsel and for initial hearing en banc, grant Respondents’ motion to strike Assa’ad-Faltas’
informal opening brief attachments docketed as ECF Nos. 16-2 through 16-6, 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