Court Opinion

ID: 6324352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-03-17 19:01:19.189906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:51.325824
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

KENWANIEE VONTORIAN TATE, a/k/a Keno,

                     Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00265-RJC-DCK-1; 3:19-cv-
00146-RJC)

Submitted: March 4, 2022                                          Decided: March 17, 2022

Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenwaniee Vontorian Tate, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenwaniee Vontorian Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is 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 Tate has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Tate’s motion to appoint counsel, 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