McClanahan v. Hollar , 201 F. App'x 164 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7918
    DALLAS MCCLANAHAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    A. HOLLAR,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-05-345)
    Submitted:   August 30, 2006             Decided:   September 28, 2006
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dallas McClanahan, Appellant Pro Se.     Josephine Frances Whalen,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Dallas McClanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.              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     any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that McClanahan has
    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
    McClanahan’s motion for appointment of counsel 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: 05-7918

Citation Numbers: 201 F. App'x 164

Judges: Hamilton, King, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/28/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023