Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edith Josephine STANLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-03
Citations: 164 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 05-7602
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edith Josephine STANLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 436–436

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Edith Josephine STANLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7602.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided: Feb. 3, 2006.
Edith Josephine Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erik S. Goes, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edith Josephine Stanley seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This 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 that any assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley 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