United States of America v. Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6238
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SYLVIA ANITA RYAN-WEBSTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CR-02-60-A; CA-04-489-1)
Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 12, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles
Erickson, Jr., Thomas Higgins McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Sylvia Anita Ryan-Webster, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her motion
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the
district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ryan-
Webster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the
motion for appointment of counsel and 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 of 2 --