United States of America v. Alvita Karen Gunn

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7871
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVITA KAREN GUNN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:09-cr-00213-RWT-4; 8:14-cv-00167-RWT)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvita Karen Gunn, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan E. Foreman, Lindsay
Eyler Kaplan, Christen Anne Sproule, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alvita Karen Gunn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Gunn has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny Gunn’s motion for bail or
release pending appeal, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --