Case Name: Mary E. FIELDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-19
Citations: 119 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 04-7414
Parties: Mary E. FIELDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Mary E. FIELDS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 19, 2005.
Mary E. Fields, Appellant pro se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mary E. Fields, a state prisoner, seeLs to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and procedural default. The 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 her 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 Fields 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