Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce HAMER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 84 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 03-7229
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce HAMER, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brenda Joyce HAMER, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 03-7229.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Brenda Joyce Hamer, Appellant pro se.
Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; William Earl Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Brenda Joyce Hamer, a federal prisoner, 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that her 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 Hamer 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