US v. Theresa Head, No. 08-8483 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8483 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. THERESA JANE HEAD, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:05-cr-00026-jpj-mfu-1; 2:08-cv-80053-jpjmfu) Submitted: February 19, 2009 Decided: February 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theresa Jane Head, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Theresa Jane Head seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on & Supp. 2008) motion. her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 The 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 prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this by § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims U.S.C. find the that district by any (2000). demonstrating assessment court is A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Head has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. motion to appoint counsel. We dispense We also deny Head s 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

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.