Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07668/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07668-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lisa Marie Casey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7668

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Lisa Marie 

Galliher, a/k/a Lisa Marie Graninger, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00071-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80057-jctmfu) 

Submitted: January 7, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lisa Marie Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7668 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Lisa Marie Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude Casey has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Casey’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

Appeal: 09-7668 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2