United States v. Hedgepeth , 358 F. App'x 446 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GWENDOLYN CHEEK HEDGEPETH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00297-HEH-1; 3:09-cv-00346-HEH)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 30, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive 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 that Hedgepeth
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