United States v. Marks , 322 F. App'x 314 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7241
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    BRENDA JOYCE MARKS, a/k/a Joyce Thompson Marks, a/k/a Brenda
    Joyce Horsley Marks,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.      Raymond A. Jackson,
    District Judge. (4:06-cr-00106-RAJ-JEB; 4:08-cv-00006-RAJ)
    Submitted:    April 13, 2009                 Decided:   April 21, 2009
    Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brenda Joyce Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Howard
    Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Brenda    Joyce    Marks        seeks     to     appeal     the    district
    court’s order denying relief on her 
    28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
     (West
    Supp.    2008)    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 Marks has
    not     made    the     requisite      showing.          Accordingly,       we     deny    a
    certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis,      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: 08-7241

Citation Numbers: 322 F. App'x 314

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 4/21/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023