Case Name: Anne Marie CHAMBERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-05
Citations: 128 F. App'x 325
Docket Number: No. 04-7951
Parties: Anne Marie CHAMBERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 325–326

Head Matter:
Anne Marie CHAMBERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kuma DEBOO, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7951.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 5, 2005.
Anne Marie Chambers, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Anne Marie Chambers seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion construed by the district court as a 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). 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 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 Chambers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chambers' motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, 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