Hill v. Johnson , 117 F. App'x 886 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7242
    JAMES H. HILL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-788-1)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004            Decided:   December 21, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James H. Hill, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James H. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254
    proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Hill 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: 04-7242

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 886

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/21/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024