Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Camille FORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-22
Citations: 117 F. App'x 268
Docket Number: No. 04-7264
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Camille FORD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 268–269

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Camille FORD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7264.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided Dec. 22, 2004.
Camille Ford, Appellant pro se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Camille Ford seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying her motion to reopen her previous 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir.2004). 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, 336-38, 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 Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ford's motion for 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