Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Rene POWERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-14
Citations: 465 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 11-7329
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Rene POWERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephanie Rene POWERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 14, 2012.
Stephanie Rene Powers, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Terri-Lei O’Malley, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephanie Rene Powers seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Powers 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.