Court Opinion

ID: 1018335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:18:50.655909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:46.174081
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

EDITH JOSEPHINE STANLEY,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CR-00-224; CA-04-818-2)

Submitted: January 26, 2006                 Decided:   February 3, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edith Josephine Stanley, Appellant Pro Se.       John Castle Parr,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erik
S. Goes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           Edith Josephine Stanley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

to deny as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.               This 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     any

assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley

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

                                    - 2 -