Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06946/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06946-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chanel Elease Faison
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHANEL ELEASE FAISON, a/k/a Chanel Faison Faison,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, 

Chief District Judge. (4:12-cr-00004-RBS-TEM-2; 4:13-cv-00093-

RBS)

Submitted: December 22, 2014 Decided: January 7, 2015

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chanel Elease Faison, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward 

Bradenham, II, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Andrew Lamont Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia; Kelly Kathleen Pearson, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; John Curtis 

Hanley, Kevin Louis Rosenberg, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Appeal: 14-6946 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6946 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Chanel Elease Faison 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 Faison 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 

Appeal: 14-6946 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6946 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pg: 4 of 4