Joyner v. Angelone , 89 F. App'x 829 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7309
    KENNETH BRIAN JOYNER,
    Petitioner -     Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-01-1189-AM)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2003         Decided:     February 25, 2004
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kenneth Brian Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    III, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Kenneth Brian Joyner seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).   An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    habeas corpus 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 Joyner has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,     we   deny   Joyner’s    motions     for   a   certificate       of
    appealability, appointment of counsel and an extension of time to
    file unspecified pleadings, and we 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: 02-7309

Citation Numbers: 89 F. App'x 829

Judges: King, Motz, Per Curiam, Traxler

Filed Date: 2/25/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023