US v. Shawntay Swann

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999223685-2] Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00443-TDS-1,1:10-cv-00150-TDS-JLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999296083]. Mailed to: S. Swann. [13-7610]

Appeal: 13-7610

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7610

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHAWNTAY LAKEITH SWANN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00443-TDS-1; 1:10-cv-00150-TDS-JLW)

Submitted:

January 31, 2014

Decided:

February 12, 2014

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawntay Lakeith Swann, Appellant Pro Se.
Angela Hewlett
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7610

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shawntay Lakeith Swann seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge

issues

denying

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

relief

“a

on

of

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

appealability.

28

(2012)

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

his

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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 Swann has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
deny Swann’s motion for appointment of counsel.

2

We

We dispense

Appeal: 13-7610

Doc: 10

Filed: 02/12/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3