Court Opinion

ID: 1017133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:00:03.907278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:14.239253
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 05-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

SYLVIA ANITA RYAN-WEBSTER,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-02-60-A; CA-04-489-1)

Submitted:   August 31, 2005            Decided:   September 12, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster, Appellant Pro Se.      Robert Charles
Erickson, Jr., Thomas Higgins McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).         An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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

for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the

district   court’s   assessment   of   his   constitutional    claims    is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.        See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 that Ryan-

Webster has not made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the

motion for appointment of counsel and 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 -