Case ID: f-appx_69/html/0195-01.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

Van Prince WELCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6688.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 30, 2003.
    Decided July 15, 2003.
    Van Prince Welch, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Van Prince Welch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and requesting a certificate of appeal-ability. Welch cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating Pthat 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Welch 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.