Court Opinion

ID: 4580181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-23 19:00:17.235102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:23.305426
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-6765

ZONTA TAVARUS ELLISON,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:19-cv-00441-FDW)

Submitted: October 20, 2020                                   Decided: October 23, 2020

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zonta Tavarus Ellison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Zonta Tavarus Ellison seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition and subsequent motion for stay as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and

dismissing them as successive and unauthorized. 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, 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 Ellison 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