Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07871/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07871-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alvita Karen Gunn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALVITA KAREN GUNN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-4; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvita Karen Gunn, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Lindsay 

Eyler Kaplan, Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States

Attorneys, Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7871 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alvita Karen Gunn 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 

Gunn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny Gunn’s motion for bail or 

release pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 14-7871 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7871 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3