US v. Shaniesta Banks

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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