                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 03-7229



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


BRENDA JOYCE HAMER,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CR-99-423, CA-03-1405-4-22)


Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 22, 2003


Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brenda Joyce Hamer, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; William Earl
Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Brenda Joyce Hamer, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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       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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hamer

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


                                       2
