US v. Cathy Ferguson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00890-TMC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999838968]. Mailed to: Cathy Ferguson. [16-6233]

Appeal: 16-6233

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6233

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CATHY DIANE FERGUSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(7:09-cr-00890-TMC-1)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

June 1, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy Diane Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6233

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Cathy Ferguson seeks to appeal from the district court’s order
construing

her

motion

to

amend

her

sentence

and

motion

for

correction of restitution as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) motion, and denying it on that basis.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (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 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
Ferguson 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

2

Appeal: 16-6233

Doc: 7

adequately

Filed: 06/01/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3