Pughsley v. Angelone , 78 F. App'x 286 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6829
DALE LEE PUGHSLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-1246-7)
Submitted: October 9, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dale Lee Pughsley, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dale Lee Pughsley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not
be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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, ,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Pughsley 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