Court Opinion

ID: 4540940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-12 12:00:32.858189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:58.300865
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MIRACLE SMITH,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00283-REP-RCY-2; 3:19-cv-
819)

Submitted: May 28, 2020                                           Decided: June 3, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miracle Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Miracle Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing her 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2018) motion as successive and dismissing it as unauthorized. 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) (2018). 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) (2018).

When, as here, 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 Smith 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2