UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

NICOLE ESTELLA JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00141-FL-1; 5:16-cv-00297-FL)

Submitted: October 1, 2021 Decided: October 20, 2021

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Paul Vitrano, VITRANO LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Wake Forest, North Carolina, for Appellant. Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Nicole Estella Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the

Government’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion and denying relief on Jones’

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jones’ 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 this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2