Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0581-01.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

Timothy Lee COLES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-7559.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 2, 2004.
    Timothy Lee Coles, Appellant pro se.
    John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Timothy Lee Coles seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Coles 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 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, 326, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Coles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coles’ motion for injunctive relief, 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