Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peggy Jo SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-17
Citations: 57 F. App'x 584
Docket Number: No. 03-6119
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peggy Jo SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 584–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peggy Jo SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6119.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2003.
Decided March 17, 2003.
Peggy Jo Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Peggy Jo Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.), (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sullivan has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.