Case ID: f-appx_69/html/0633-01.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. Marjorie MOISE, a/k/a Jane Doe, a/k/a Katrina Yates, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-7884.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 30, 2003.
    Decided July 18, 2003.
    Marjorie Moise, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM:

Marjorie Moise appeals from the order of the district court denying relief on her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). In reviewing the denial of a § 2255 motion, 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) (2000). 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, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Assuming without deciding that equitable tolling applies, we conclude that Moise has failed to make this showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Moise’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.