Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tammy Michelle JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 89 F. App'x 826
Docket Number: No. 03-7540
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tammy Michelle JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tammy Michelle JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7540.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Tammy Michelle Johnson, Appellant pro se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Tammy Michelle Johnson seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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(e)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his or her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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