Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Megan Nichole Hanson MOSTELLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-23
Citations: 621 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 15-7031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Megan Nichole Hanson MOSTELLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 621
Pages: 213–214

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Megan Nichole Hanson MOSTELLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 23, 2015.
John G. Reckenbeil, Law Office of John Reckenbeil, LLC, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Megan Nichole Hanson Mosteller seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mosteller 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.