United States v. Cline , 357 F. App'x 527 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7608
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    SANTANA JADE CLINE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:07-cr-00133-GBL-1; 1:09-cv-00373-GBL)
    Submitted:    December 15, 2009            Decided:   December 21, 2009
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Santana Jade Cline, Appellant Pro Se.      Stephanie Bibighaus
    Hammerstrom, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Santana     Jade    Cline        seeks     to     appeal      the    district
    court’s order denying relief on 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 Cline 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7608

Citation Numbers: 357 F. App'x 527

Filed Date: 12/21/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021