Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Latasha Marie SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-16
Citations: 89 F. App'x 424
Docket Number: No. 03-7320
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Latasha Marie SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Latasha Marie SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-7320.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2003.
Decided March 16, 2004.
Latasha Marie Smith, Appellant pro se.
Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Latasha Marie Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Smith cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 § 2255 movant meets 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 Smith 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