Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tina BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-24
Citations: 304 F. App'x 198
Docket Number: No. 08-7225
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tina BRYANT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 304
Pages: 198–198

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Tina BRYANT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 3, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 24, 2008.
Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tina Bryant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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 Bryant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.