Court Opinion

ID: 1014400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:16:05.329654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:43.907526
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

YVONNE BORDERS BENNETT,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-01-10-V; CA-03-52-5)

Submitted:   September 16, 2004       Decided:   September 22, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvonne Borders Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Yvonne Borders Bennett, a federal prisoner, seeks to

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

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).            The order is not appealable

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 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 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 that Bennett 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 -