UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NADINE MURIEL WALTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-00-5)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nadine Muriel Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nadine Muriel Walton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000) motion. 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 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 his
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 Walton has not made the requisite showing.
Walton’s claim of error under Blakely v. Washington, 542
U.S. 296 (2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) (holding that Blakely
applies to the federal sentencing guidelines), is available for
post-conviction relief for a federal prisoner whose conviction was
final before either of those cases was decided. United States v.
Morris, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 2950 (4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -