Opinion
22-6628
06-08-2023
MARIE THERESE ASSA'AD-FALTAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: March 27, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (8:20-cv-00800-TLW)
Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marie Therese Assa'ad-Faltas seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Assa'ad-Faltas has not made the requisite showing. We deny Assa'ad-Faltas' motions for appointment of counsel and for initial hearing en banc, grant Respondents' motion to strike Assa'ad-Faltas' informal opening brief attachments docketed as ECF Nos. 16-2 through 16-6, deny 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