US v. Jeffreys

Filing 920070823

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6766

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRENDA KAY JEFFREYS, a/k/a William B. Kay, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CR-01-16)

Submitted:

July 31, 2007

Decided:

August 23, 2007

Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Kay Jeffreys, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Evenson, II, Winnie Jordan Reaves, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Brenda Kay Jeffreys seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, denying her motion to alter or amend the judgment, and denying her request for a certificate of appealability. These orders are not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Jeffreys has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of We dispense with oral

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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 -