Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sharon Sonia CARNEGIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-25
Citations: 178 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 06-6020
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sharon Sonia CARNEGIE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 193–193

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sharon Sonia CARNEGIE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6020.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2006.
Decided: April 25, 2006.
Sharon Sonia Carnegie, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Sonia Carnegie seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 ap-pealability 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 her 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carnegie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Carnegie's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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.