                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 05-6955



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


ATARAH MCQUINN,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CR-02-95)


Submitted:   December 21, 2005            Decided:   January 10, 2006


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Atarah McQuinn, Appellant Pro Se.     Robert E. Trono, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Atarah McQuinn seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denying

relief on 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 the district court’s assessment of her

constitutional       claims    is    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   McQuinn   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 -
