Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anne Marie CHAMBERS, a/k/a Sugar, a/k/a Anne Marie Jack, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-27
Citations: 692 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 17-6176
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anne Marie CHAMBERS, a/k/a Sugar, a/k/a Anne Marie Jack, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anne Marie CHAMBERS, a/k/a Sugar, a/k/a Anne Marie Jack, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6176
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Anne Marie Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, David Vincent Har-bach, II, Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anne Marie Chambers seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012), 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) (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 Chambers 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED