Court Opinion

ID: 4473167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-01-14 20:00:16.921014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:54.616277
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6761

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

KAREN HOLTZ,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cr-00244-AJT-1; 1:18-cv-00700-
AJT)

Submitted: December 20, 2019                                      Decided: January 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Holtz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Karen Holtz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2018) 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) (2018).        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) (2018). 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 Holtz 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 this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                             2