United States v. Piercy
United States v. Piercy
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7659
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KIMBERLY ANN PIERCY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-03-71; CA-05-396-3-MU)
Submitted: February 15, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly Ann Piercy, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani S. Murray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Ann Piercy seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her
28 U.S.C. § 2255(2000) motion. This
order is not appealable 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 any
assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. See 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(4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Piercy
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 -
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished