Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winnie Joanne BAREFOOT, a/k/a Winnie Jo Budzina, a/k/a Winnie JoAnne Conn, a/k/a Joanne Knopsnyder, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Morgan, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Barefoot Morgan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 14-7303
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winnie Joanne BAREFOOT, a/k/a Winnie Jo Budzina, a/k/a Winnie JoAnne Conn, a/k/a Joanne Knopsnyder, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Morgan, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Barefoot Morgan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Winnie Joanne BAREFOOT, a/k/a Winnie Jo Budzina, a/k/a Winnie JoAnne Conn, a/k/a Joanne Knopsnyder, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Morgan, a/k/a Olivia JoAnne Barefoot Morgan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 21, 2014.
Winnie Joanne Barefoot, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Winnie Joanne Barefoot seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, her motions for reconsideration, and her motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.G. § 2258(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barefoot has not made the requisite showing. Barefoot's challenge to the propriety of the district court's ruling on the issue of its own disqualification is meritless. United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191, 1202-03 (7th Cir.1985). Her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because she essentially challenges only the district court's credibility determination, which is not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. Nicholson, 611 F.3d 191, 208 (4th Cir.2010).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Barefoot's motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.