Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Peele, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    Tina Louise Peele appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Peele did not make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6301

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Tina Louise Peele appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Peele did not make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    United States v. Peele, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Tina Louise Peele appealed the district court's denial of her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows prisoners to challenge their sentences. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Peele did not make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-6301

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TINA LOUISE PEELE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
    Judge. (CR-00-119, CA-01-964-2)

    Submitted:

    May 15, 2003

    Decided:

    May 22, 2003

    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Tina Louise Peele, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tina Louise Peele seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on her motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000). We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peele has not
    made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
    See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

    U.S.

    , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the


    appeal.

    See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c) (2000).

    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

    You might also like