Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shuray Vonique BYNUM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-02
Citations: 387 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 09-7534
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shuray Vonique BYNUM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shuray Vonique BYNUM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7534.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2010.
Decided: July 2, 2010.
Shuray Vonique Bynum, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Bartlett Fitzwater, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shuray Vonique Bynum seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bynum 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.