United States v. Linda Tribby ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7533
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LINDA TRIBBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00106-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00637-LO)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Linda Tribby, Appellant Pro Se. Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linda Tribby seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Tribby has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Tribby’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Tribby’s motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3