Filed: May 22, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6301 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TINA LOUISE PEELE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-119, CA-01-964-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6301 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TINA LOUISE PEELE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-00-119, CA-01-964-2) Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003 Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6301
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TINA LOUISE PEELE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-00-119, CA-01-964-2)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 22, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tina Louise Peele, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Edward Patricco, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tina Louise Peele seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on her motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peele has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. ,
123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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