US v. Shaniesta Banks


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00157-RGD-TEM-1,2:16-cv-00285-RGD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999993538]. Mailed to: S Banks. [16-7002]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7002 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHANIESTA KENAY BANKS, a/k/a Shaniesta Keene, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:13-cr-00157-RGD-TEM-1; 2:16-cv-00285-RGD) Submitted: December 14, 2016 Decided: December 27, 2016 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaniesta Kenay Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7002 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Shaniesta Kenay Banks seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a the appealability. district See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” When of showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Banks 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: 16-7002 Doc: 8 adequately Filed: 12/27/2016 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 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?