Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell Brown RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-29
Citations: 222 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 06-7966
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell Brown RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vernell Brown RANDOLPH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7966.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2007.
Decided: March 29, 2007.
Vernell Brown Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Vernell Brown Randolph 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 Randolph 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.