United States v. Ford , 117 F. App'x 268 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7264
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CAMILLE FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CR-94-163; CA-98-1206-2)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Camille Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Laura P. Tayman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Camille Ford seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying her motion to reopen her previous 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); see
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004). 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, 336-38 (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 Ford has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Ford’s motion for 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 -