US v. Tyrell Saunder


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00032-JLK-1,4:14-cv-80771-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999748886]. Mailed to: Saunders. [15-7471]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7471 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7471 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. TYRELL KEONI SAUNDERS, a/k/a Rico, a/k/a Little Red, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:12-cr-00032-JLK-1; 4:14-cv-80771-JLK-RSB) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and WYNN, Decided: Circuit Judges, February 4, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrell Keoni Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7471 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Tyrell Keoni Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saunders 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: 15-7471 Doc: 7 contentions Filed: 02/04/2016 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?