UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7218

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NADINE MURIEL WALTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-00-5)

Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nadine Muriel Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Nadine Muriel Walton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on her

(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.

(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2003);

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(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,

(2004), is unavailing because neither Blakely nor United

States v. Booker,

(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, __ F.3d __,

(4th Cir. Nov. 7, 2005).

- 2 - 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

- 3 -