Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judith L. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant, and Group Trips Unlimited, Incorporated, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-16
Citations: 68 F. App'x 510
Docket Number: No. 03-6669
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judith L. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant, and Group Trips Unlimited, Incorporated, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 68
Pages: 510–511

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Judith L. MILLER, Defendant-Appellant, and Group Trips Unlimited, Incorporated, Defendant.
No. 03-6669.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 10, 2003.
Decided July 16, 2003.
William Collins Brennan, Jr., Upper Marlboro, Maryland; Frank Salvato, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jack I. Hanly, Office of the united States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judith L. Miller seeks to appeal 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(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 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, 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.), 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 Miller 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.