Sayre v. McBride , 81 F. App'x 796 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6555
KENNY DREW SAYRE, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
MICHAEL COLEMAN, Acting Warden,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-41-1)
Submitted: October 31, 2003 Decided: December 3, 2003
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenny Drew Sayre, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenny Drew Sayre, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his motion for a private investigator.
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, 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 Sayre has not made the requisite showing.*
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We also deny Sayre’s motion for appointment of counsel and
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.
*
We decline to address the issues Sayre raises for the first
time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for first time on appeal
will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).
3
DISMISSED
4