Langston v. Braxton ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6674
THOMAS EUGENE LANGSTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. A. BRAXTON, Warden, Red Onion State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-305-AM)
Submitted: September 26, 2003 Decided: October 17, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Eugene Langston, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Thomas E. Langston seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion. Langston cannot
appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a
certificate of appealability, and 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). An appellant
meets 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.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Langston has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Langston’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.* We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
In his informal brief to this court, Langston requests
authorization to file a second petition for habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b). Having construed this informal brief as a motion
for authorization, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200,
208 (4th Cir. 2003), we conclude that, under the strictures of that
statute, Langston is not entitled to such authorization.
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3