Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobbi DUNCAN, a/k/a Nee Nee, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-15
Citations: 227 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 07-6142
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bobbi DUNCAN, a/k/a Nee Nee, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bobbi DUNCAN, a/k/a Nee Nee, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6142.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2007.
Decided: May 15, 2007.
Bobbi Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. Laura C. Marshall, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bobbi Duncan has filed a motion for certificate of appealability in regard to the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Duncan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny her motion for 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.