DeBardeleben v. Hood ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6726
    JAMES M. DEBARDELEBEN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT A. HOOD, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-05-198)
    Submitted:     October 18, 2005            Decided:   October 20, 2005
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James       M.    DeBardeleben       seeks    to   appeal    the    district
    court’s order dismissing as successive his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge    issues      a        certificate    of     appealability.          
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 
    392 F.3d 683
    , 688 (4th Cir.
    2004).      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 both that the
    district     court’s          assessment    of    the     constitutional    claims     is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
    the district court are also debatable or wrong.                           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
    DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            No
    active judge of this court has voted to grant hearing en banc;
    therefore, we deny DeBardeleben’s petition for initial hearing en
    banc.    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: 05-6726

Judges: Widener, Michael, Duncan

Filed Date: 10/20/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024