United States v. Friend , 155 F. App'x 692 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7306
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    VALLIA CAROLYN FRIEND,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CR-99-201; CA-03-846)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 29, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vallia Carolyn Friend, Appellant Pro Se. David John Novak, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Vallia C. Friend seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on her motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
    (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.       
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).       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)   (2000).    A   prisoner   satisfies   this   standard   by
    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district
    court’s assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).           We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Friend 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: 05-7306

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 692

Filed Date: 11/29/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014