Court Opinion

ID: 2716248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-08 07:00:51.99655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:44.385548
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6695

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DORIS DENISE FOSTER,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00013-MR-DLH-7; 1:13-cv-00168-MR)

Submitted:   July 24, 2014                   Decided:    July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and    THACKER,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doris Denise Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael Kent, Jill
Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina; William Michael Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Doris    Foster    seeks     to      appeal     the     district        court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)

(2012).     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) (2012).                    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 Foster 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 this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3