Wambach v. Hinkle , 272 F. App'x 305 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7665
FREDDY L. WAMBACH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GEORGE HINKLE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
CLAUDE M. HILTON, U.S. District Judge,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00714-TSE)
Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Freddy L. Wambach seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as
procedurally defaulted. 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 Wambach 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 -