Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06048/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cheukma Kenyata Sanders
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHEUKMA KENYATA SANDERS, a/k/a Kuma,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-CH-13; 5:09-cv00135-RLV)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cheukma Kenyata Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6048 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Cheukma Kenyata Sanders seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.*

 * We decline to consider Sanders’ claim, raised for the 

first time in this court, that the district court applied the 

Sentencing Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, and counsel failed 

to object. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 

1993).

 We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 10-6048 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6048 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3