Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moretta T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-27
Citations: 159 F. App'x 516
Docket Number: No. 05-6864
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moretta T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 159
Pages: 516–517

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moretta T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6864.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2005.
Decided Dec. 27, 2005.
Moretta T. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Eric William Ruschky, Assistant United States Attorney, Kevin Frank McDonald, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Moretta T. Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 his 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, 336-38, 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 Brown has not made the requisite show ing. 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