United States v. Latonya Davis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States v. Latonya Davis

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7489

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LATONYA RENEE DAVIS, a/k/a Pooh,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (0:04-cr-00898-JFA-2; 0:16-cv- 01938-JFA)

Submitted: March 9, 2021 Decided: March 11, 2021

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latonya Renee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Latonya Renee Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her

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 Davis 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished