Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-30
Citations: 606 F. App'x 120
Docket Number: No. 15-6423
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: ■ Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra ELLIOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6423.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2015.
Decided: June 30, 2015.
Sandra Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. William Miller Gilmore, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
■ Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sandra Elliott, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on various post-judgment motions challenging her conviction and sentence. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Elliott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.