Court Opinion

ID: 8600101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:23:08.28511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.839752
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Nadine Muriel Walton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s or*481der 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 Walton has not made the requisite showing.
Walton’s claim of error under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (holding that Blakely applies to the federal sentencing guidelines), is available for post-conviction relief for a federal prisoner whose conviction was final before either of those cases was decided. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65 (4th Cir.2005).
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