Robertson v. Johnson , 146 F. App'x 670 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6582
    RANDALL CECIL ROBERTSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-691-7-SGW)
    Submitted:   September 28, 2005           Decided:   October 25, 2005
    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randall Cecil Robertson, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Randall Cecil Robertson 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
    , 336-38 (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 Robertson 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: 05-6582

Citation Numbers: 146 F. App'x 670

Judges: Duncan, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 10/25/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023