Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Michelle DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-11
Citations: 355 F. App'x 753
Docket Number: No. 09-6655
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephanie Michelle DAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 355
Pages: 753–754

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Stephanie Michelle DAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6655.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 28, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 11, 2009.
Stephanie Michelle Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephanie Michelle Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 dis-positive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 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 Davis 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.