Simmons v. Ponton , 80 F. App'x 816 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6856
    HAYER SIMMONS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    HENRY J. PONTON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-02-550)
    Submitted:   October 24, 2003          Decided:     November 10, 2003
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Hayer Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Hayer Simmons seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s* order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    The order is appealable only if 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
    ,                       , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039 (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 Simmons has not
    made the requisite showing.                 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.                      We deny Simmons’s motions
    for an evidentiary hearing and for appointment of counsel.                                 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.
    *
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
    judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    2
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6856

Citation Numbers: 80 F. App'x 816

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 11/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024