Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Lee SWISHER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-27
Citations: 552 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 13-7475
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Lee SWISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 284–284

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Lee SWISHER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7475.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2014.
Brenda Lee Swisher, Appellant Pro Se. Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Lee Swisher seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Swisher 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.