Byrd v. Commonwealth of VA , 114 F. App'x 117 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7154
    STEVEN BYRD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (CA-04-95)
    Submitted:     November 10, 2004            Decided:   December 3, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Steven Byrd, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition
    filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) for failure to exhaust state
    remedies on all claims.            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 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 Byrd has not made the requisite
    showing.      Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
    dismiss    the   appeal.      We    also   deny   Byrd’s     motion   for   trial
    transcripts at the government’s expense.                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: 04-7154

Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 117

Judges: Williams, Motz, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/3/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024