Hammonds v. Johnson , 69 F. App'x 198 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6562
    BENJAMIN HUGH HAMMONDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director        of   the   Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-02-598-2)
    Submitted:    July 8, 2003                       Decided:   July 16, 2003
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin Hugh Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Amy L. Marshall, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin Hugh Hammonds seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).    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   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
    , 1040 (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 Hammonds has not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we
    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                  We
    deny his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and 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: 03-6562

Citation Numbers: 69 F. App'x 198

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Traxler, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/16/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023