Hall v. Johnson , 86 F. App'x 607 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7361
    SEAN WARDELL HALL,
    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.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-714-2)
    Submitted: January 29, 2004                  Decided:   February 5, 2004
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Sean Wardell Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Sean Wardell Hall 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
    , 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       Hall   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: 03-7361

Citation Numbers: 86 F. App'x 607

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 2/5/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023