Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Ann SAVVA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-04
Citations: 140 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 05-6253
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patricia Ann SAVVA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Patricia Ann SAVVA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6253.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2005.
Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
Patricia Ann Savva, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Patricia Ann Sawa, currently serving a federal probationary sentence, seeks to, appeal the district court's order dismissing her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of Sawa's 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sawa has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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