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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?