United States v. Burgess , 117 F. App'x 272 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7310
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
YOLANDA VIOLA BURGESS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-00-162-1)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 22, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yolanda Viola Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly A. Riley, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69
(4th Cir. 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 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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
- 2 -