DocketNumber: 03-6669
Citation Numbers: 69 F. App'x 197
Filed Date: 7/16/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6669 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JUDITH L. MILLER, Defendant - Appellant, and GROUP TRIPS UNLIMITED, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CR-02-95, CA-03-504-A) Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Collins Brennan, Jr., Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Frank Salvato, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jack I. Hanly, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Judith L. Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). 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
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,529 U.S. 473
, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,252 F.3d 676
, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. 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