Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07067/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07067-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7067 

ELTON TIMOTHY GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

A.D. ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01154-CMH)

Submitted: December 20, 2007 Decided: December 27, 2007

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elton Timothy Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7067 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elton Timothy Green 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 appealability. See 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. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Green

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Green’s

motion for appointment of counsel, 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

Appeal: 07-7067 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2