Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Endia Geneva HINCHEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-07
Citations: 239 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 07-6205
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Endia Geneva HINCHEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 239
Pages: 837–838

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Endia Geneva HINCHEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-6205.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 17, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2007.
Endia Geneva Hinchey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Endia Geneva Hinchey 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 Hinchey 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.