Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darlene GREEN, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-03
Citations: 108 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 04-6824
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darlene GREEN, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darlene GREEN, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 04-6824.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 28, 2004.
Decided Sept. 3, 2004.
Darlene Green, Appellant pro se. Christine Manuelian, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darlene Green seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 sat isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his 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, 336, 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.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green 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