Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0606-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howard Frank NEAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Helen FAHEY, Virginia Parole Board-in her Individual and Official Capacities; Carol Ann Sievers, Vice Chairman-in her Individual and Official Capacities; Herbert V. Couton, Board Member-in his Individual and Official Capacities; David N. Harker, Board Member-in his Individual and Official Capacities; Michael M. Hawes, Board Member-in his Individual and Official Capacities; H. Randolph Powell, Warden, Brunswick Correctional Center-in his Individual and Official Capacities, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-6549.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 23, 2009.
    Decided Feb. 5, 2009.
    Howard Frank Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Howard Frank Neal seeks to appeal the district court’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 appeal-ability. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Neal 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