Knight v. Johnson , 294 F. App'x 37 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6286
    TYRONE L. KNIGHT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (1:07-cv-00694-LMB-BRP)
    Submitted:   August 14, 2008             Decided:   September 23, 2008
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tyrone L. Knight, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Tyrone L. Knight 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
    Knight 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: 08-6286

Citation Numbers: 294 F. App'x 37

Judges: Duncan, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 9/23/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023