Hernandez-Soto v. Hall , 234 F. App'x 178 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6392
    MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ-SOTO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JOSEPH HALL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02103-H)
    Submitted: July 24, 2007                    Decided:   July 30, 2007
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Miguel Angel Hernandez-Soto, Appellant Pro Se.        Clarence Joe
    DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Miguel Angel Hernandez-Soto 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.        
    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.               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 Hernandez-Soto
    has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we deny the
    motion for 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: 07-6392

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 178

Judges: Wilkinson, Traxler, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/30/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024