Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felicia Inez HAMLETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-01
Citations: 184 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 06-6338
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Felicia Inez HAMLETT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 305–305

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Felicia Inez HAMLETT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6338.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: June 1, 2006.
Felicia Inez Hamlett, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Felicia Hamlett seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and related filings as time-barred, and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. These orders are 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 the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims 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 Hamlett 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.