Court Opinion

ID: 1011360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:26:20.530385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:29.464935
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 03-6824

DAWN MAUREEN EGAN,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PATRICIA L. HAUFFMAN, Warden,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-180-A)

Submitted:   August 14, 2003                 Decided:   August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dawn Maureen Egan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Dawn Maureen Egan seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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   her

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,                , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Egan 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