US v. McQuinn, No. 05-6955 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6955 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ATARAH MCQUINN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-02-95) Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 10, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Atarah McQuinn, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Atarah McQuinn seeks to appeal the district court s order granting the Government s motion for summary judgment and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable 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 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 that the district court s assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable 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). record and showing. conclude and materials McQuinn has not made the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. facts that We have independently reviewed the legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.