US v. Keviuntae Hytower

Filing

UNPUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Motion certificate of appealability-denied (Local Rule 22(a)) [999774568-2], Originating case number: 4:11-cr-02247-TLW-1,4:14-cv-01081-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court. [999930787]. Mailed to: Keviuntae Hytower. [16-6379]

Appeal: 16-6379

Doc: 17

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6379

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEVIUNTAE HYTOWER, a/k/a Trouble, a/k/a Trub,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-02247-TLW-1; 4:14-cv-01081-TLW)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keviuntae Hytower, Appellant Pro Se.
Arthur Bradley Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6379

Doc: 17

Filed: 09/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Keviuntae Hytower 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 of appealability.

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
Hytower has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Hytower’s motion for 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 before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2