Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gwendolyn Cheek HEDGEPETH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-29
Citations: 279 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 08-6168
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gwendolyn Cheek HEDGEPETH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gwendolyn Cheek HEDGEPETH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6168.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 29, 2008.
Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gwendolyn Cheek Hedgepeth seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 certifícate 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 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 Hedgepeth has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hedgepeth's "Motion for Suspension of the Finality of Judgment/the Enforcement of New Orders Pending Appeal," deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hedgepeth's motion for 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.