From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Banks

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2020
No. 20-6222 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2020)

Opinion

No. 20-6222

06-19-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE BANKS, Defendant - Appellant.

Dwayne Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (2:15-cr-00007-JAG-DEM-4; 2:16-cv-00637-JAG) Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Curtis Bosse, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Banks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 motion 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 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Banks

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 19, 2020
No. 20-6222 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Banks

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DWAYNE BANKS, Defendant…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 19, 2020

Citations

No. 20-6222 (4th Cir. Jun. 19, 2020)