Clark v. Bassett , 124 F. App'x 799 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7850
    CHRISTORA RAY CLARK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    K. J. BASSETT,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (CA-04-350)
    Submitted:   March 24, 2005                  Decided:   March 30, 2005
    Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Christora Ray Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Christora Ray Clark 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
    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 Clark
    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: 04-7850

Citation Numbers: 124 F. App'x 799

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 3/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023