DocketNumber: 09-7226
Citation Numbers: 365 F. App'x 512
Judges: Wilkinson, King, Hamilton
Filed Date: 2/19/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7226 WARREN N. CEPHAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, VA Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:08-cv-00731-MHL) Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: February 19, 2010 Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren N. Cephas, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Warren N. Cephas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253
(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Cephas 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 * Pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 636
(c) (2006), the parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3