Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Tressie Lynn Mitchell of the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and denied Mitchell a certificate of appealability, determining she failed to make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court dismissed Mitchell's appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6814

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Tressie Lynn Mitchell of the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and denied Mitchell a certificate of appealability, determining she failed to make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court dismissed Mitchell's appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    United States v. Mitchell, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal by Tressie Lynn Mitchell of the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court independently reviewed the record and denied Mitchell a certificate of appealability, determining she failed to make a substantial showing that her constitutional rights were denied. As a result, the court dismissed Mitchell's appeal without oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 05-6814

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    TRESSIE LYNN MITCHELL,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
    Judge. (CR-03-78; CA-04-449-7)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 2005

    Decided:

    August 26, 2005

    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Tressie Lynn Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.


    Dennis Howard Lee,
    COMMONWEALTHS ATTORNEYS OFFICE, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Tressie Lynn Mitchell, a federal prisoner, seeks to
    appeal the district courts order denying her 28 U.S.C. 2255
    (2000) motion.

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit

    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th
    Cir. 2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    this

    would

    and

    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    her

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Mitchell has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like