Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06678/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06678-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Russell Holden
Appellant
Robey C. Lee
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6678

RUSSELL HOLDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBEY C. LEE, Warden of Central Prison,

Raleigh, North Carolina,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:00-hc-00850-F)

Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: July 28, 2008

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Patrick Bradley, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill

Ledford Cheek, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6678 Doc: 25 Filed: 07/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Russell Holden, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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 Holden has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Holden’s

request for the appointment of counsel. 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: 07-6678 Doc: 25 Filed: 07/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2