Redditt v. Commonwealth of VA , 117 F. App'x 881 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6941
LOUISE REDDITT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-430-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louise Redditt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Louise Redditt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Redditt has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny her motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Redditt’s
motion for appointment of counsel, motion to withdraw her Fairfax
County court appointed attorney, motion to show cause for the
warrant, and motions for trial transcripts at the government’s
expense. We deny as moot the motion to resume consideration of the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -