UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4543
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLENE LOVONE SHADE, a/k/a Charlene Lovone
Dunphy, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Arnold,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-45)
Submitted: December 21, 2005 Decided: January 18, 2006
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John G. Hackney, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN G. HACKNEY, JR.,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston,
United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States
Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charlene Lovone Shade, 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 Shade 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 -