Court Opinion

ID: 6324858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-18 19:01:54.766389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:55.509172
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 21-6348

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JULIA TERYAEVA-REED,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00207-GLR-1; 1:19-cv-02259-GLR)

Submitted: January 31, 2022                                       Decided: March 18, 2022

Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julia Teryaeva-Reed, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Julia Teryaeva-Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on her

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying her motion for reconsideration. 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 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 Teryaeva-Reed has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her motion for 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