Thinnes v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , 234 F. App'x 124 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7692
    NORBERT K. THINNES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (3:05-cv-00351-JRS)
    Submitted:   June 27, 2007                 Decided:   July 23, 2007
    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,
    for Appellant. Susan Lee Parrish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Norbert K. Thinnes seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition and
    denying     his    motion    for   reconsideration.           The     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    Thinnes   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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7692

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 124

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/23/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024