US v. Debbie Singleton
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEBBIE MARIE SINGLETON, a/k/a Debbie Marie Wofford, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00030-jpj-mfu-3; 1:08-cv-80071-jpjmfu))
October 20, 2009
October 27, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Debbie Marie Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Debbie Marie Singleton seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Singleton has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?