United States v. Tanesha Bannister , 487 F. App'x 804 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-6721
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TANESHA BANNISTER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-40; 3:10-cv-70277-CMC)
    Submitted:   October 17, 2012             Decided:   November 8, 2012
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tanesha Bannister, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore,
    Jane   Barrett  Taylor,   Assistant   United States  Attorneys,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tanesha Bannister seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on her 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West Supp. 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) (2006).            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) (2006).               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 Bannister 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-6721

Citation Numbers: 487 F. App'x 804

Filed Date: 11/8/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014