Court Opinion

ID: 9401063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:43.760939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.553512
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6628

        MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00800-TLW)

        Submitted: March 27, 2023                                            Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628      Doc: 22         Filed: 06/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying her

        28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and 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)(A). 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 petition 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 Assa’ad-Faltas has

        not made the requisite showing. We deny Assa’ad-Faltas’ motions for appointment of

        counsel and for initial hearing en banc, grant Respondents’ motion to strike Assa’ad-Faltas’

        informal opening brief attachments docketed as ECF Nos. 16-2 through 16-6, 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