Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07534/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07534-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shuray Vonique Bynum
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7534

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHURAY VONIQUE BYNUM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:05-cr-00084-RBS-TEM-2; 2:08-cv-00594-RBS-TEM)

Submitted: June 22, 2010 Decided: July 2, 2010

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shuray Vonique Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Bartlett 

Fitzwater, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7534 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shuray Vonique Bynum seeks to appeal the district 

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

Supp. 2010) 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). 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 Bynum 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 adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 09-7534 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7534 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/02/2010 Pg: 3 of 3