Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0198-01.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

Arthur Lee GOODEN, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6101.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 28, 2003.
    Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Arthur Lee Gooden, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and his motion to reconsider the order, and denying his motion to reconsider the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to amend his pleading. We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Gooden has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Gooden v. Braxton, No. CA-01-666-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 8, 2002; Dec. 18, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.