US v. Brenda Marks

Filing 920090421

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRENDA JOYCE MARKS, a/k/a Joyce Thompson Marks, a/k/a Brenda Joyce Horsley Marks, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:06-cr-00106-RAJ-JEB; 4:08-cv-00006-RAJ)

Submitted:

April 13, 2009

Decided:

April 21, 2009

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Joyce Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Brenda Joyce Marks seeks to appeal the district

court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 28 U.S.C. standard find the that § 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). A that the or

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marks 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 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

2