U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2022

United States v. Kenwaniee Tate

United States v. Kenwaniee Tate
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 17, 2022

United States v. Kenwaniee Tate

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.