Lovings v. Johnson , 117 F. App'x 264 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7244
    JAMES SMITH, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-03-303-2)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004          Decided:     December 22, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Smith, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    James Smith, Jr., 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    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 Smith 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7244

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 264

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/22/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024