                            UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
