Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Tillery HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-18
Citations: 121 F. App'x 540
Docket Number: No. 04-7450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Tillery HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 121
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patricia Tillery HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7450.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 18, 2005.
Patricia Tillery Hill, Appellant pro se.
Banumathi Rangarajan, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Patricia Tillery Hill 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 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dis pense 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