Lucas v. Young , 117 F. App'x 876 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7139
    FREDERICK LUCAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    S. K. YOUNG,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-02-305)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004            Decided:   December 21, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frederick Lucas, Appellant Pro Se.    Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Frederick Lucas seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by
    the district court 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 Lucas 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: 04-7139

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 876

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/21/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024