United States v. Squillacote

328 F. App'x 168

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THERESA MARIE SQUILLACOTE, a/k/a Tina, a/k/a Mary Teresa Miller, a/k/a The Swan, a/k/a Margaret, a/k/a Margit, a/k/a Margret, a/k/a Margrit, a/k/a Lisa Martin, a/k/a Resi, a/k/a Anne, a/k/a Schwan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00061-CMH-2; 1:02-cv-00537-CMH)

Submitted: April 30, 2009 Decided: July 1, 2009

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa Marie Squillacote, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Leonard Walutes, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Theresa Marie Squillacote 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 Squillacote

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant

Squillacote’s motions for judicial notice, to supplement, and to

amend her informal brief; we deny her motion to file

electronically. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED