Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07008/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
H. R. Arthur
Appellee
Christopher George Hamilton
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7008

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE HAMILTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

H. R. ARTHUR, SR., Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00682-jlk)

Submitted: March 21, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher George Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances

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

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7008 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher George Hamilton 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. 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. 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 Hamilton has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hamilton’s motion

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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: 07-7008 Doc: 23 Filed: 04/03/2008 Pg: 2 of 2