Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Regina VENGOECHEA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-14
Citations: 123 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 04-7552
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Regina VENGOECHEA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Regina VENGOECHEA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7552.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2005.
Decided: March 14, 2005.
Regina Vengoechea, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Regina Vengoechea seeks to appeal the district court's order construing her Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it without prejudice. 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, 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.C. § 2253(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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vengoechea 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