Smith v. Beck , 174 F. App'x 768 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7127
    STEPHEN HENRY SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK, Secretary of NC Prison,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CA-05-15-5-BO)
    Submitted:   March 30, 2006                 Decided: April 6, 2006
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stephen Henry Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen Henry Smith, a North Carolina prisoner, 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
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    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 Smith
    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: 05-7127

Citation Numbers: 174 F. App'x 768

Judges: Gregory, Per Curiam, Shedd, Traxler

Filed Date: 4/6/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023