Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Debra CENISEROS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 498
Docket Number: No. 09-6553
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Debra CENISEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 498–498

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Debra CENISEROS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-6553.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 30, 2009.
Debra Ceniseros, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Ahern, Jonathan Leo Fahey, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Debra Ceniseros seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) 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 981 (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 Ceniseros 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.