Court Opinion

ID: 205464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-02-25 01:06:53+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:48.168756
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 10-7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LEE HOPE THRASHER,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00148-RBS-TEM-2; 2:10-cv-00094-RBS)

Submitted:   January 31, 2011             Decided:   February 24, 2011

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Hope Thrasher, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Joseph Seidel, Jr.,
Assistant  United  States   Attorney,  Norfolk,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Lee Hope Thrasher seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

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).               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 Thrasher 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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3