Hawkins v. Jarvis , 114 F. App'x 114 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7160
    RICHARD M. HAWKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LARRY JARVIS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-03-795-7)
    Submitted:   November 5, 2004             Decided:   December 2, 2004
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard M. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.       Richard Bain Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard M. Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order 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 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   Hawkins    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: 04-7160

Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 114

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/2/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024