Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07733/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07733-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miracle Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MIRACLE SMITH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00283-REP-RCY-2; 3:19-cv819)

Submitted: May 28, 2020 Decided: June 3, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miracle Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7733 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/03/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Miracle Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing her 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2018) motion as successive and dismissing it as unauthorized. 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 

When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7733 Doc: 6 Filed: 06/03/2020 Pg: 2 of 2