Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tressie Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-26
Citations: 142 F. App'x 168
Docket Number: No. 05-6814
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tressie Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 168–169

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tressie Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6814.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2005.
Tressie Lynn Mitchell, Appellant pro se. Dennis Howard Lee, Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tressie Lynn Mitchell, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a con stitutional 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 Mitchell 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