US v. Tina Bryant, No. 08-7225 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7225 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TINA BRYANT, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00237-RLV-DCK-4; 5:08-cv00055-RLV) Submitted: December 3, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008 Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tina Bryant seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating A that prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists this would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable 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). conclude We that have Bryant independently has not reviewed made the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.