Court Opinion

ID: 9907178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 21:00:30.01509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:57:24.350324
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6111      Doc: 10         Filed: 12/04/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6111

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        SYDNEY ANDREA CRANDON, a/k/a Brittany Banks,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00296-BO-1; 5:22-cv-00213-BO)

        Submitted: November 17, 2023                                  Decided: December 4, 2023

        Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sydney Andrea Crandon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6111       Doc: 10         Filed: 12/04/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sydney Andrea Crandon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        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 Crandon has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her motions for a certificate of

        appealability and to appoint counsel 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

                                                      2