Duenas v. Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , 234 F. App'x 93 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6578
    MARCUS DUENAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DIRECTOR    OF     VIRGINIA     DEPARTMENT    OF
    CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:05-cv-00660-gec)
    Submitted:   June 11, 2007                   Decided:   July 12, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Marcus Duenas, Appellant Pro Se.       Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Marcus Duenas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.           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     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Duenas 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: 06-6578

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 93

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/12/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024