Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06373/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06373-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dorothy Lee Anderson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6373

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DOROTHY LEE ANDERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (3:11-cr-00837-JFA-1; 3:14-cv-03576-JFA)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 2, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy Lee Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6373 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Lee Anderson 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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We also deny Anderson’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and for preparation of a transcript at government 

expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-6373 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6373 Doc: 12 Filed: 08/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3