Court Opinion

ID: 3208431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-01 19:01:00.214918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:26.250226
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-6233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CATHY DIANE FERGUSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00890-TMC-1)

Submitted:   May 26, 2016                  Decided:   June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy Diane Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Cathy Ferguson seeks to appeal from the district court’s order

construing    her   motion   to   amend     her   sentence   and    motion   for

correction of restitution as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2012) motion, and denying it on that basis.                The order is

not   appealable    unless   a    circuit    justice   or    judge    issues   a

certificate of appealability.        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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.

      We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Ferguson 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

                                      2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3