United States v. Deborah Bordeaux , 459 F. App'x 217 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7148
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEBORAH BORDEAUX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(4:02-cr-00673-RMG-5; 4:09-cv-70013-RMG)
Submitted: December 13, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Bordeaux, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Bordeaux seeks to appeal the district court’s
order 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 Bordeaux has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Bordeaux’s pending motions to supplement the record and amend
her § 2255 motion, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3