Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Selena Antionette WITHERSPOON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-24
Citations: 60 F. App'x 987
Docket Number: No. 03-6293
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Selena Antionette WITHERSPOON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 987–987

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Selena Antionette WITHERSPOON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6293.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 24, 2003.
Selena Antionette Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Selena Antionette Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order denying a motion under § 2255 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by the district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Witherspoon has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.