United States v. Casey ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7668
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Lisa Marie
    Galliher, a/k/a Lisa Marie Graninger,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.     James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge.   (1:06-cr-00071-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80057-jct-
    mfu)
    Submitted:    January 7, 2010                 Decided:   January 27, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lisa Marie Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lisa Marie Casey 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 Casey has not
    made the requisite showing.              Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                      We also deny Casey’s
    motion    for   appointment       of     counsel.        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: 09-7668

Filed Date: 1/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021