Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Teshara Leann SYKES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-16
Citations: 306 F. App'x 829
Docket Number: No. 08-7659
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Teshara Leann SYKES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 306
Pages: 829–829

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Teshara Leann SYKES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7659.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.
Decided: Jan. 16, 2009.
Teshara Leann Sykes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Teshara Leann Sykes 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 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 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 Sykes 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.