Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0768-01.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

Harry BROCKWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6108.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 19, 2003.
    Decided May 29, 2003.
    Harry Broekwell, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM:

Harry Broekwell, 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 habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). Habeas corpus relief may be granted only if the state court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, or the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This Court may only grant a certificate of ap-pealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The relevant inquiry is whether “ ‘reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’ ” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Broekwell 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.