Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yolanda Viola BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-22
Citations: 117 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 04-7310
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yolanda Viola BURGESS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Yolanda Viola BURGESS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7310.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided Dec. 22, 2004.
Yolanda Viola Burgess, Appellant pro se. Kimberly A. Riley, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Yolanda Viola Burgess seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her motion for relief from judgment, which the district court characterized as a Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. An gelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (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 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 Burgess 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