UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7668
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LISA MARIE CASEY, a/k/a Lisa Marie Adams, a/k/a Lisa Marie
Galliher, a/k/a Lisa Marie Graninger,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00071-jct-mfu-1; 1:08-cv-80057-jct-
mfu)
Submitted: January 7, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lisa Marie Casey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lisa Marie Casey 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 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
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 Casey has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Casey’s
motion for appointment of counsel. 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
2