Filed: Apr. 22, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEBORAH GAIL FROCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-WDQ-1; 1:11-cv-01495-WDQ) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEBORAH GAIL FROCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-WDQ-1; 1:11-cv-01495-WDQ) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah G..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DEBORAH GAIL FROCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00093-WDQ-1; 1:11-cv-01495-WDQ)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah Gail Frock, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Miller Yasser,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deborah Gail Frock seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2012) motion and her motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Frock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3