Court Opinion

ID: 2797014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-28 19:01:00.464157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:07.191706
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7871

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ALVITA KAREN GUNN,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-4; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)

Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvita Karen Gunn, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Lindsay
Eyler Kaplan, Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Alvita     Karen       Gunn    seeks     to    appeal     the     district    court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                                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

Gunn has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Gunn’s motion for bail or

release pending appeal, 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