Bennett v. Watson ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6995
    CHRISTOPHER LEE BENNETT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    BRIAN WATSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Jackson L. Kiser, District
    Judge. (7:06-cv-00751)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2007             Decided:   October 25, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christopher Lee Bennett, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Christopher Lee Bennett 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 Bennett 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: 07-6995

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 10/25/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024