Court Opinion

ID: 8600040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:21:23.398178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.697978
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Bernice Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and concluding that United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) is not retroactively applicable in § 2255 proceedings. 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 the district court’s assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings 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 Pearson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the *595facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED