Burley v. Angelone ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6864
    JAMES HENRY BURLEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-1000-7)
    Submitted:   November 6, 2003          Decided:     November 18, 2003
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Henry Burley, Appellant Pro Se.     Stephen R. McCullough,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Henry Burley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    The order is 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   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
    , 1040 (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 Burley 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: 03-6864

Filed Date: 11/18/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014