Marie Assa'ad-Faltas v. State of South Carolina

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6628

MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CITY OF COLUMBIA SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

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)

Submitted: March 27, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6628 Doc: 22 Filed: 06/08/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

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