US v. Linda Tribby, No. 13-7533 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7533 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LINDA TRIBBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00106-LO-1; 1:12-cv-00637-LO) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda Tribby, Appellant Pro Se. Jasmine Hyejung Yoon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Linda Tribby seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate (2012). of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 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) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tribby has not made the requisite showing. deny Tribby s dismiss the motion for appeal. appointment of counsel. a We Accordingly, we certificate of also Tribby s deny appealability motion and for We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
