Mazza v. Commonwealth of VA , 266 F. App'x 306 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7353
    ANTHONY F. MAZZA, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:07-cv-00075-MHL)
    Submitted:     February 21, 2008            Decided:   February 26, 2008
    Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony F. Mazza, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony F. Mazza, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate
    judge’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 Mazza has not made
    the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    *
    This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of
    the parties under 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-7353

Citation Numbers: 266 F. App'x 306

Judges: Gregory, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkins

Filed Date: 2/26/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023