Court Opinion

ID: 1025788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:55:52.112106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:22.417129
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6168

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GWENDOLYN CHEEK HEDGEPETH,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00297-HEH-1; 3:06-cv-00613-HEH)

Submitted:     May 22, 2008                  Decided:   May 29, 2008

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth 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 Hedgepeth has

not made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Hedgepeth’s

“Motion for Suspension of the Finality of Judgment/the Enforcement

of New Orders Pending Appeal,” deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal.       We deny Hedgepeth’s motion for 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

                                - 2 -