Levi v. Pruett ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6779
    TIMOTHY J. LEVI,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SAMUEL PRUETT, Warden of JRCC; GENE JOHNSON,
    Director of Department of Corrections,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
    Judge. (CA-05-293-1)
    Submitted:   September 26, 2005           Decided:   October 21, 2005
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy J. Levi, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy J. Levi seeks to appeal from 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
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    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
    , 336-38 (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 Levi
    has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we deny the
    motion for 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: 05-6779

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Motz

Filed Date: 10/21/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024