Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06761/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06761-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Holtz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAREN HOLTZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00244-AJT-1; 1:18-cv-00700-

AJT)

Submitted: December 20, 2019 Decided: January 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Holtz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6761 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/14/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Karen Holtz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Holtz has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6761 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/14/2020 Pg: 2 of 2