Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Atarah MCQUINN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-10
Citations: 163 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 05-6955
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Atarah MCQUINN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Atarah MCQUINN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6955.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided: Jan. 10, 2006.
Atarah McQuinn, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Atarah McQuinn seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Government's motion for summary judgment and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 336-38, 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 McQuinn 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