Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce MARKS, a/k/a Joyce Thompson Marks, a/k/a Brenda Joyce Horsley Marks, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-21
Citations: 322 F. App'x 314
Docket Number: No. 08-7241
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce MARKS, a/k/a Joyce Thompson Marks, a/k/a Brenda Joyce Horsley Marks, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 322
Pages: 314–315

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce MARKS, a/k/a Joyce Thompson Marks, a/k/a Brenda Joyce Horsley Marks, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7241.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2009.
Decided: April 21, 2009.
Brenda Joyce Marks, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Howard Jacob Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brenda Joyce Marks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Marks has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.