Court Opinion

ID: 1018592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:22:48.266179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:17.333005
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

KIMBERLY ANN PIERCY,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-03-71; CA-05-396-3-MU)

Submitted:   February 15, 2006             Decided:   March 2, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimberly Ann Piercy, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani S. Murray, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Kimberly Ann Piercy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                  This

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     any

assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the   district   court   is   likewise   debatable.         See    Miller-El    v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 Piercy

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 -