Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlene Lovone SHADE, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Dunphy, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Arnold, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 161 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 05-4543
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charlene Lovone SHADE, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Dunphy, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Arnold, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charlene Lovone SHADE, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Dunphy, a/k/a Charlene Lovone Arnold, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 05-4543.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
John G. Hackney, Jr., the Law Office of John G. Hackney, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Charlene Lovone Shade, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 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 his 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 Shade 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