Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

U.S. v. UDEOZOR, 425 Fed.Appx. 258 (4th Cir. 2011)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adaobi Stella UDEOZOR, a/k/a Adaobi Stella Obioha, a/k/a Stella Udeozor, a/k/a Adaobi Stella Obiaha, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7384.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: April 15, 2011.
Decided: April 27, 2011.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:03-cr-00470-PJM-1).

Adaobi Stella Udeozor, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Kenneth Ake, Office of The United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Steven M. Dunne, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Adaobi Stella Udeozor seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) 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 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockreli, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-55, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Udeozor 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.