Martin v. Braxton , 186 F. App'x 360 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7488
    ROBERT J. MARTIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    D. A. BRAXTON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
    Judge. (CA-04-780)
    Submitted:   June 16, 2006                  Decided:   June 29, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert J. Martin, Appellant Pro Se.     Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert J. Martin, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from the final
    order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims
    addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his
    constitutional     claims    is   debatable      or    wrong   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 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Martin 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: 05-7488

Citation Numbers: 186 F. App'x 360

Judges: Gregory, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 6/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023