United States v. Casey

363 F. App'x 244

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Lisa Marie Galliher, a/k/a Lisa Marie Graninger,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00071-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80057-jct- mfu)

Submitted: January 7, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lisa Marie Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Lisa Marie Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009)

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 Casey has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Casey’s

motion for appointment of counsel. 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