Boyce v. Attorney General of Virginia , 115 F. App'x 179 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7311
    DUANE SCOTT BOYCE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ATTORNEY GENERAL     OF   THE    COMMONWEALTH   OF
    VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CA-03-1044-3)
    Submitted:   November 17, 2004            Decided:   December 20, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Duane Scott Boyce, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Duane Scott Boyce, 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
    (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 Boyce 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: 04-7311

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 179

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 12/20/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024