US v. Santonio Minu

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-5, 5:15-cv-80802-MFU-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000055213]. Mailed to: Santonio Lenord Minus. [16-7511]

Appeal: 16-7511

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SANTONIO LENORD MINUS, a/k/a Cheese, a/k/a Baldhead, a/k/a
B.G., a/k/a Santonio Minus,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge.
(5:12-cr-00014-MFU-RSB-5; 5:15-cv-80802-MFURSB)

Submitted:

March 30, 2017

Decided:

April 4, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Santonio Lenord Minus, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Grayson A.
Hoffman, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Harrisonburg, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia; Craig Jon Jacobsen,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Roanoke,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Appeal: 16-7511

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-7511

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/04/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Santonio Lenord Minus 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
Minus has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

3

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 16-7511

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 04/04/2017

are

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4