United States v. Stieff

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6215
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALEHYA STIEFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CR-96-24, CA-00-208-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2003 Decided: June 2, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alehya Stieff, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alehya Stieff seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). In reviewing the
denial of a claim on its merits, this Court may only grant a
certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable jurists
would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1040 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000)).
Where the district court dismisses a claim solely on
procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue
unless the movant 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, 529 U.S. at 484), cert. denied, 122 S.
Ct. 318 (2001).
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Stieff has not made the requisite showing. 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
3