Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaniesta Kenay BANKS, a/k/a Shaniesta Keene, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-27
Citations: 672 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 16-7002
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaniesta Kenay BANKS, a/k/a Shaniesta Keene, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 278–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shaniesta Kenay BANKS, a/k/a Shaniesta Keene, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7002
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 14, 2016
Decided: December 27, 2016
Shaniesta Kenay Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shaniesta Kenay Banks seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. See 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Banks 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