Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kimberly Ann PIERCY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-02
Citations: 172 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 05-7659
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kimberly Ann PIERCY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 172
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kimberly Ann PIERCY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7659.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2006.
Decided: March 2, 2006.
Kimberly Ann Piercy, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani S. Murray, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kimberly Ann Piercy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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 her constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Piercy 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.