Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06423/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06423-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sandra Elliott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SANDRA ELLIOTT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00543-BO)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, Stephen 

Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann 

Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6423 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Sandra Elliott, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on various post-judgment 

motions challenging her conviction and sentence. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 15-6423 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6423 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3