Case Name: Karen Chanita POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-22
Citations: 139 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 05-6273
Parties: Karen Chanita POWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Karen Chanita POWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Barbara J. WHEELER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6273.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2005.
Decided: July 22, 2005.
Karen Chanita Powell, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Karen Chanita Powell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing her petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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 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 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, 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 Powell 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