United States v. Jodi Dodson , 468 F. App'x 213 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7284
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JODI DARLENE DODSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:08-cr-00053-IMK-DJJ-3; 1:10-cv-00004-IMK-
DJJ)
Submitted: February 22, 2012 Decided: March 6, 2012
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jodi Darlene Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Angus Morgan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jodi Darlene Dodson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) motion. The order is 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 Dodson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. In addition, we deny all of Dodson’s pending
motions, including her motions for appointment of counsel, to
overturn her conviction, for subpoenas, and for reconsideration.
2
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
3