Showalter v. Braxton ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6720
    MARK TODD SHOWALTER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    D. A. BRAXTON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-289-SGW)
    Submitted:   September 28, 2005           Decided:   October 13, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark Todd Showalter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Mark Todd Showalter seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from a final order in a
    habeas corpus 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 the district
    court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Showalter has not made the
    requisite     showing.      Accordingly,       we   deny    a    certificate     of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We grant Showalter’s motion
    to place portions of the record (Volumes 2-6) on appeal under seal.
    We    dispense    with   oral   argument   because    the       facts   and   legal
    *
    Showalter also appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying
    his motion for extension of time to note an appeal. Because the
    magistrate judge construed the motion as Showalter’s notice of
    appeal, and the notice of appeal is deemed timely filed, we find no
    error.
    - 2 -
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6720

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Motz

Filed Date: 10/13/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024