UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7220

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENISE ANN SOUTHERLAND,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00292-GBL-1; 1:12-cv-01043-GBL)

Submitted: November 19, 2013 Decided: November 22, 2013

Before WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denise Ann Southerland, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy D. Belevetz, Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Nathanson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Denise Ann Southerland seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on her

(West

Supp. 2013) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v.

Cockrell,

(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,

.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Southerland has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We also deny Southerland’s motions to expedite and

for release pending appeal and dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2 in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3