Carson v. Jobe , 289 F. App'x 656 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6653
    THOMAS DEAN CARSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WILLARD JOBE, Superintendent,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
    District Judge. (1:04-cv-00177-GCM)
    Submitted:   August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 20, 2008
    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thomas Dean Carson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas Dean Carson 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 Carson
    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: 08-6653

Citation Numbers: 289 F. App'x 656

Judges: Michael, Wilkins, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/20/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024