United States v. Sullivan ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PEGGY JO SULLIVAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-99-24, CA-02-1284-7)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peggy Jo Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Peggy Jo Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). When a district court dismisses a § 2255
motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability
will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)
‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.), (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Sullivan has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No.
01-7662). 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