Greene v. Young , 70 F. App'x 148 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6731
    GARY W. GREENE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STAN YOUNG, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-02-76-7)
    Submitted:   July 24, 2003                 Decided:   July 31, 2003
    Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary W. Greene, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Gary W. Greene seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    The order is appealable only if 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
    ,                  , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Greene 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: 03-6731

Citation Numbers: 70 F. App'x 148

Judges: Hamilton, Michael, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/31/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023