Court Opinion

ID: 2813083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-30 19:00:54.812316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:27.902457
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-6423

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SANDRA ELLIOTT,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00383-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00543-BO)

Submitted:   June 25, 2015                  Decided:   June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, Stephen
Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann
Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Sandra Elliott, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on various post-judgment

motions challenging her conviction and sentence.   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

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.   We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

                                2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3