US v. Shontonio Witherspoon

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cr-00844-PMD-1,2:14-cv-00160-PMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999495963]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-7116]

Appeal: 14-7116

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHONTONIO L. WITHERSPOON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:08-cr-00844-PMD-1; 2:14-cv-00160-PMD)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 18, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shontonio L. Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7116

Doc: 6

Filed: 12/18/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Shontonio L. Witherspoon 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

Witherspoon

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

2

Appeal: 14-7116

before

Doc: 6

this

Filed: 12/18/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3