McAfee v. Johnson , 83 F. App'x 556 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7558
    DUY NGOC TRAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director of           the   Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CA-03-79-3)
    Submitted:    December 11, 2003           Decided:     December 23, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Duy Ngoc Tran, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Duy Ngoc Tran seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) as
    untimely.     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    § 2254 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 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    Tran    has     not       made    the     requisite        showing.
    Accordingly, we deny Tran’s motion for transcripts at government
    expense, 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: 03-7558

Citation Numbers: 83 F. App'x 556

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024