Dollison v. Angelone ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6892
    WILLIE DOLLISON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-02-226-2)
    Submitted:    October 31, 2003            Decided:     November 12, 2003
    Before WIDENER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Willie Dollison, Appellant Pro Se.      Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Willie     Dollison,     a    state   prisoner,        seeks    to   appeal   the
    district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).          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 for claims
    addressed by a district court 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       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, 
    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.), cert.
    denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001).           We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Dollison 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: 03-6892

Filed Date: 11/12/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014