US v. Nina Strickland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00005-FDW-1,3:11-cv-00279-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998726068]. Mailed to: Nina Strickland. [11-7224]

Appeal: 11-7224

Document: 5

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7224

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NINA MARIE STRICKLAND,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00005-FDW-1; 3:11-cv-00279-GCM)

Submitted:

November 15, 2011

Decided:

November 18, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nina Marie Strickland, Appellant Pro Se.
Thomas A. O'Malley,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7224

Document: 5

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nina
court’s

order

Marie

Strickland

dismissing

as

(West Supp. 2011) motion.

seeks

untimely

to

appeal

her

28

the

district

U.S.C.A.

§ 2255

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

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).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would

find

that

the

district

court’s

assessment

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.

of

the

Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the
dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion
states
right.

a

debatable
Slack,

529

claim

of

the

denial

U.S.

at

484-85.

We

of

a

constitutional

have

independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Strickland 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

2

Appeal: 11-7224

Document: 5

Date Filed: 11/18/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3