Opinion
No. 20-7277
03-02-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYNISHA MARTIN KADIRI, a/k/a Martin Kadiri, a/k/a T D Martin, a/k/a Tynisha Martin, a/k/a Shrug, Defendant - Appellant.
Tynisha Martin Kadiri, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Maddox, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00367-JKB-1; 1:19-cv-03300-JKB) Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tynisha Martin Kadiri, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Maddox, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Tynisha Martin Kadiri seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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). 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, 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 Kadiri 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