US v. Bertina Macklin

Filing 920090306

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6855

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. BERTINA MACKLIN, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00094-RLW-1; 3:05-cv-00193-RLW)

Submitted:

February 17, 2009

Decided:

March 6, 2009

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bertina Macklin, Assistant United Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Bertina Macklin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and has not made the requisite showing.

Macklin

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