Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zsa Zsa COUNCIL, a/k/a Toochie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-18
Citations: 533 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 13-6393
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zsa Zsa COUNCIL, a/k/a Toochie, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 533
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zsa Zsa COUNCIL, a/k/a Toochie, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6393.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 12, 2013.
Decided: July 18, 2013.
Zsa Zsa Council, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zsa Zsa Council seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (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 Council 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.