United States v. Wiggs ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6258
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KIMBERLY WIGGS, a/k/a Kim R. Wiggs,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00095-REP-1; 3:08-cv-00791-REP)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kimberly Wiggs, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Wiggs seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)
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). 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 Wiggs has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Wiggs’s motion for a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3