Court Opinion

ID: 1012815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:50:53.306737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:20.457624
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7320

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LATASHA MARIE SMITH,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-98-37; CA-02-612-7)

Submitted:   October 29, 2003             Decided:   March 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Latasha Marie Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Latasha Marie Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.       Smith cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 § 2255

movant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude Smith 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

                               - 2 -