Case ID: f-appx_49/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frankie Barbara DELISE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7093.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
    Decided Oct. 31, 2002.
    Frankie Barbara Delise, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Frankie Barbara Delise seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition that the court properly construed as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Delise has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Delise, No. CR-99-16 (E.D. Va. filed May 17, 2002; entered May 24, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. 
      
       Because Delise has previously filed her first § 2255 motion, we conclude there was no error in the court's not providing notice under United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644, 649-50 (4th Cir.2002), of its intent to construe the motion as one under § 2255.