United States v. Singleton , 348 F. App'x 885 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7381
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEBBIE MARIE SINGLETON, a/k/a Debbie Marie Wofford,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.     James P. Jones, Chief
    District Judge.   (1:05-cr-00030-jpj-mfu-3; 1:08-cv-80071-jpj-
    mfu))
    Submitted:    October 20, 2009              Decided:   October 27, 2009
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit             Judge,   and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Debbie Marie Singleton, Appellant Pro Se.           Jennifer R.
    Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Debbie Marie Singleton seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on her 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.   2009)    motion.        The     order      is   not    appealable     unless      a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).                   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)      (2006).         A
    prisoner     satisfies         this        standard      by     demonstrating          that
    reasonable      jurists      would     find      that    any     assessment       of     the
    constitutional        claims    by    the    district     court    is   debatable         or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                             We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Singleton
    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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7381

Citation Numbers: 348 F. App'x 885

Filed Date: 10/27/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014