Court Opinion

ID: 8600016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:20:34.791951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.679730
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Mary Josephine Daniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 both that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Daniel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Daniel’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and *668dismiss 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