Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonia Lorrane HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-14
Citations: 50 F. App'x 642
Docket Number: No. 02-7233
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonia Lorrane HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 642–642

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonia Lorrane HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-7233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.
Decided Nov. 14, 2002.
Sonia Lorrane Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Alexander Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sonia L. Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken in a proceeding under § 2255 unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion on the merits, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the appellant can make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Harris has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Hams, Nos. CR-00-234; CR-00-235; CR-00-236; CA-01-800-1 (M.D.N.C. filed May 2, 2002; entered May 3, 2002). 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.