McCray v. Johnson , 260 F. App'x 555 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7357
    EDWIN CRUZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (7:07-cv-00185-jet)
    Submitted:    December 13, 2007        Decided:     December 21, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edwin Cruz, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney
    General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Edwin Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.               The order
    is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.        See 
    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     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the   district   court   is   likewise   debatable.         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 Cruz
    has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we deny a
    certificate of appealability, deny Cruz’s motion for appointment of
    counsel, 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: 07-7357

Citation Numbers: 260 F. App'x 555

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024