UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAMELA YVETTE HOFFLER-RIDDICK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:05-cr-00009-WDK-JEB-13; 4:08-cv-00135-MSD)
Submitted: December 15, 2010 Decided: January 11, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela Yvette Hoffler-Riddick, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew
Hurt, Lisa Rae McKeel, Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia; Blair C. Perez, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Hoffler-Riddick 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 (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 a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Hoffler-Riddick has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We also deny her motion for bail pending appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3