United States v. Denise Southerland , 546 F. App'x 317 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7220
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DENISE ANN SOUTHERLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00292-GBL-1; 1:12-cv-01043-GBL)
Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013
Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denise Ann Southerland, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy D. Belevetz,
Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Nathanson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Denise Ann Southerland seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 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 Southerland has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Southerland’s motions to expedite and
for release pending appeal and dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3