
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rachel REED, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-6110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 17, 2008.
    Decided: April 23, 2008.
    Rachel Reed, Appellant Pro Se. C. Patrick Hogeboom, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rachel Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 Reed 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. 
      
       Reed’s notice of appeal also refers to the district court's order denying her motion to reduce her sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). Pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 4(d), a copy of the notice of appeal has been sent to the district court clerk’s office for filing.
     