Vick v. Warden, Wallens Ridge Correctional Center , 98 F. App'x 958 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6525
    RANDLE LENARD FREEMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center,
    Jarratt, Virginia,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (CA-03-650-3)
    Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 18, 2004
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randle Lenard Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Randle    Lenard    Freeman      seeks   to    appeal    the    district
    court’s order denying his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000) as untimely.             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
    , 336 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently reviewed the
    record    and    conclude       that   Freeman    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: 04-6525

Citation Numbers: 98 F. App'x 958

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 6/18/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023