Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joset v. PROSPER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-04
Citations: 82 F. App'x 76
Docket Number: No. 03-7121
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joset v. PROSPER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 82
Pages: 76–77

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joset v. PROSPER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7121.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2003.
Decided Dec. 4, 2003.
Joset V. Prosper, Appellant pro se.
William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joset V. Prosper seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prosper 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