Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalyn NEAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-01
Citations: 324 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 08-8315
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalyn NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 208–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalyn NEAL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-8315.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2009.
Decided: May 1, 2009.
Rosalyn Neal, Appellant Pro Se. James Chris Leventis, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rosalyn Neal seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neal 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.