Edmond v. Robinson , 117 F. App'x 297 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6938
    GEORGE TYRONE EDMOND,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    A. DAVID ROBINSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-03-120-1)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2004         Decided:     December 29, 2004
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    George Tyrone Edmond, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    III, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    George Tyrone Edmond, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
    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
    ,
    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 Edmond 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: 04-6938

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 297

Judges: Traxler, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/29/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024