Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angela Nicole NELSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-12
Citations: 264 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 07-7323
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angela Nicole NELSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 264
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Angela Nicole NELSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 25, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 12, 2008.
Angela Nicole Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, VA, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Angela Nicole Nelson 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial howing 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 Nelson 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.