Reid v. Angelone , 133 F. App'x 889 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6023
    JUANITA POPE REID,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CA-02-300)
    Submitted:   May 4, 2005                   Decided:   June 14, 2005
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Juanita Pope Reid, Appellant Pro Se.      Stephen R. McCullough,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6023

Citation Numbers: 133 F. App'x 889

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 6/14/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023