Case Name: Melanie Sammons ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Annie HARVEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-29
Citations: 207 F. App'x 336
Docket Number: No. 06-6146
Parties: Melanie Sammons ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Annie HARVEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Melanie Sammons ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Annie HARVEY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-6146.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2006.
Melanie Sammons Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Melanie Sammons Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Anderson's motion for appointment of counsel, deny her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.