Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Lee ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-02
Citations: 667 F. App'x 795
Docket Number: No. 16-6373
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Lee ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 795–795

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Lee ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6373
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2016
Decided: August 2, 2016
Dorothy Lee Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Winston David Holliday, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dorothy Lee Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 Ú.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L,Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Anderson's motions for appointment of counsel and for preparation of a transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED