Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07002/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shaniesta Kenay Banks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHANIESTA KENAY BANKS, a/k/a Shaniesta Keene,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:13-cr-00157-RGD-TEM-1; 2:16-cv-00285-RGD)

Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 27, 2016

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaniesta Kenay Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7002 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaniesta Kenay Banks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 

Banks 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 contentions are 

Appeal: 16-7002 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7002 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 3 of 3