Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Telisha Rachette WATKINS, a/k/a Wendy, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-10
Citations: 326 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 08-8282
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Telisha Rachette WATKINS, a/k/a Wendy, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 326
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Telisha Rachette WATKINS, a/k/a Wendy, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8282.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2009.
Decided: June 10, 2009.
Telisha Rachette Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Karen S. Marston, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Telisha Rachette Watkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) 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 ap-pealability 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 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watkins 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.