US v. Hamlett, No. 06-6338 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6338 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FELICIA INEZ HAMLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:99cr362; 1:05cv1332) Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: June 1, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Felicia Inez Hamlett, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Felicia Hamlett seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and related filings as time-barred, and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a A certificate of appealability will substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that constitutional the claims district is court s debatable or assessment wrong and of her that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Hamlett 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.