Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yvonne Borders BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 109 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 04-6780
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yvonne Borders BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yvonne Borders BENNETT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6780.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Yvonne Borders Bennett, Appellant pro se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yvonne Borders Bennett, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 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 Bennett 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