Court Opinion

ID: 8598956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 20:21:57.38451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:07.426202
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Lennora Banks-Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from a final order denying relief under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the *698district court that Banks-Davis has not satisfied the standards under § 2253(c)(2) or Rose. See United States v. Banks-Davis, Nos. CR-00-65; CA-02-628-3 (E.D.Va. Oct. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.