Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mamie Louise JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-29
Citations: 305 F. App'x 106
Docket Number: No. 08-7935
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mamie Louise JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 305
Pages: 106–106

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mamie Louise JONES, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-7935.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2008.
Decided: Dec. 29, 2008.
Mamie Louise Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mamie Louise Jones 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 certifícate of appeal-ability. 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones' 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.