United States v. Diggs , 318 F. App'x 207 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-8153
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALISSA RENEE DIGGS, a/k/a Alisha Renee Cage, a/k/a P.K.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (2:03-cr-00105-RBS-JEB-3; 2:08-cv-00335-RBS)
    Submitted:    February 18, 2009             Decided:   March 19, 2009
    Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alissa Renee Diggs, Appellant Pro Se.   Darryl James Mitchell,
    Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  Norfolk,  Virginia,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Alissa    Renee     Diggs       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 Diggs 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: 08-8153

Citation Numbers: 318 F. App'x 207

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/19/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023