Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06845/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Russell Adam Pelletier
Appellant
Mr. Robinson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-6845 

RUSSELL ADAM PELLETIER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MR. ROBINSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:06-cv-00582-mfu)

Submitted: February 20, 2008 Decided: March 11, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Adam Pelletier, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6845 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Russell Adam Pelletier 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 Pelletier 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

Appeal: 07-6845 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 2