Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07323/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angela Nicole Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7323

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANGELA NICOLE NELSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:05-cr-00107; 7:07-cv-00141)

Submitted: January 25, 2008 Decided: February 12, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angela Nicole Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7323 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/12/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Angela Nicole Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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 that Nelson 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7323 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/12/2008 Pg: 2 of 2