Court Opinion

ID: 2814278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-02 19:01:31.448525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:23:19.087806
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6159

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

AVA RAMEY,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00309-RWT-1; 8:14-cv-00106-RWT)

Submitted:   June 18, 2015                 Decided:   July 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ava Ramey, Appellant Pro Se.    Gregory P. Bailey, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Ava     Ramey     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

Ramey 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3