Burlile v. Johnson ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6327
CHRISTOPHER BURLILE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-03-150-2)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: July 29, 2004
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Burlile, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Burlile seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny
Burlile’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, deny his
claims of prosecutorial misconduct as procedurally defaulted, and
dismiss 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 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 (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 Burlile has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Burlile’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -