US v. Towana Scott

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:07-cr-00086-WO-1,1:10-cv-00521-WO-PTS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998824393]. Mailed to: Towana Scott. [12-6023]

Appeal: 12-6023

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TOWANA LAVONE SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00086-WO-1; 1:10-cv-00521-WO-PTS)

Submitted:

March 29, 2012

Decided:

April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Towana Lavone Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael Hamilton,
Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6023

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Towana
court’s

order

Lavone

Scott

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district
magistrate

judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion.
justice

or

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

appealability.

28

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) (2006).

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Scott has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6023

Document: 9

Date Filed: 04/03/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3