US v. Stephanie Lee Butts, No. 17-7534 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7534 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. STEPHANIE LEE BUTTS, a/k/a Stephanie Zavala, a/k/a Tater, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00042-GMG-3; 3:16-cv00007-GMG) Submitted: March 13, 2018 Decided: March 16, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephanie Lee Butts, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas Camilletti, Anna Zartler Krasinski, Assistant United States Attorneys, Lara Kay Omps-Botteicher, Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, Traci Michelle Cook, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stephanie Lee Butts seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Butts 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 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
