Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07513/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07513-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tara Gist-Savage
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TARA GIST-SAVAGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00145-FDW-DCK-1; 3:16-cv-00101-

FDW)

Submitted: March 20, 2017 Decided: March 27, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tara Gist-Savage, Appellant Pro Se. Jenny Grus Sugar, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7513 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tara Gist-Savage 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 

Gist-Savage has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-7513 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7513 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 3