Darden v. Warden, Powhatan Correctional Center ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6847
    MARVIN RICARDO DARDEN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-02-927-AM)
    Submitted:   October 23, 2003             Decided:   October 30, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marvin Ricardo Darden, Appellant Pro Se.      John H. McLees, Jr.,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Marvin Ricardo Darden seeks to appeal from 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
    , 1039 (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 Darden 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: 03-6847

Judges: Williams, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/30/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024