Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Twannette HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 05-6030
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Twannette HOLLAND, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 639–639

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Twannette HOLLAND, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 27, 2005.
Decided: June 21, 2005.
Twannette Holland, Appellant pro se.
Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Twannette Holland, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (20603); 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 Holland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We also deny Holland's motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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