Court Opinion

ID: 9785018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:02.206691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:03.538223
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6221      Doc: 9        Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6221

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANGELA M. BLYTHE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00591-JKB-1; 1:17-cv-01756-JKB)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mary Elizabeth Davis, DAVIS & DAVIS, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6221         Doc: 9      Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Angela M. Blythe seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion and her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 Blythe 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

                                                     2