Court Opinion

ID: 798793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-26 19:14:44+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:07.036662
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-6180

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TERESA R. GALLOP, a/k/a Teresa R. Vick,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00217-HCH-TEM-1; 2:10-cv-00572-
HCM)

Submitted:   April 19, 2012                 Decided:   April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teresa R. Gallop, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Lee Martin, Alan
Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Teresa R. Gallop seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a     certificate     of    appealability.          28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Gallop 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

                                           2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3