Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07679/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07679-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shonika Gail Eckles
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHONIKA GAIL ECKLES, a/k/a Nika,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00009-RLV-DCK-3; 5:11-cv00068-RLV)

Submitted: March 10, 2015 Decided: March 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shonika Gail Eckles, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth 

Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7679 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shonika Gail Eckles 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

Eckles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Eckles’ motion for a 

transcript at Government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7679 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7679 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3