UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6354
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BETH ANN BROYLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:09-cr-00003-MSD-TEM-23; 2:11-cv-00496-MSD)
Submitted: July 21, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Beth Ann Broyles, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Alleman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Norfolk, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Beth Ann Broyles seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Broyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Broyles’ motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3