Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tara GIST-SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-27
Citations: 682 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 16-7513
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tara GIST-SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tara GIST-SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7513
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 20, 2017
Decided: March 27, 2017
Tara Gist-Savage, Appellant Pro Se. Jenny Grus Sugar, Assistant United States Attorney, Benjamin Bain-Creed, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tara Gist-Savage 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 certificate 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 constitu tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gist-Savage has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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