Van Phan v. Braxton , 141 F. App'x 138 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7665
    THIET VAN PHAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DANIEL BRAXTON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    No. 05-6187
    THIET VAN PHAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    DANIEL BRAXTON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-02-840)
    Submitted:   July 15, 2005                 Decided:   August 8, 2005
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Thiet Van Phan, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
    - 2 -
    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Thiet Van Phan seeks to
    appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his petition
    filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) and denying Phan’s motion for
    reconsideration.    These orders are 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
    , 336-38 (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 Phan has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeals.     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
    - 3 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7665, 05-6187

Citation Numbers: 141 F. App'x 138

Judges: Hamilton, King, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/8/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023