Gilmore v. Commonwealth of Virginia , 81 F. App'x 788 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6987
    DWAYNE LAMONT GILMORE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-03-60-7)
    Submitted:   October 15, 2003             Decided:   December 3, 2003
    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dwayne Lamont Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se.       Kathleen B. Martin,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Dwayne Lamont Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    as procedurally defaulted.                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
    ,                       , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039 (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 Gilmore has not
    made the requisite showing.             Accordingly, we deny Gilmore’s motion
    to obtain an affidavit, 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: 03-6987

Citation Numbers: 81 F. App'x 788

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/3/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024