United States v. Bracken , 358 F. App'x 457 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7779
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIAH LEROSE BRACKEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David
Schroeder, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00206-TDS-5; 1:08-cv-00537-
TDS-PTS)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tiah Lerose Bracken, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tiah Lerose Bracken seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing as untimely 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 Bracken has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her 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 materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2