Case Name: Juanita Pope REID, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 133 F. App'x 889
Docket Number: No. 05-6023
Parties: Juanita Pope REID, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 889–890

Head Matter:
Juanita Pope REID, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6023.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 4, 2005.
Decided: June 14, 2005.
Juanita Pope Reid, Appellant pro se.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Juanita Pope Reid, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), in which she raised a defect in the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (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 the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reid 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