United States of America v. Brenda Kay Jeffreys, a/k/a William B. Kay

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
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
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 of 2 --