Court Opinion

ID: 4657563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-04 20:00:33.058534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:20.631953
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6832

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GENA C. RANDOLPH,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00302-RMG-1; 2:20-cv-
00910-RMG)

Submitted: January 27, 2021                                       Decided: February 4, 2021

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gena C. Randolph, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Gena C. Randolph seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 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, 137 S. Ct.

759, 773-74 (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 Randolph has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

Randolph’s motion for a transcript at Government expense 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