Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06999/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Viston Shyrock Martin
Appellant
Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6999

VISTON SHYROCK MARTIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00067-jlk)

Submitted: November 19, 2007 Decided: December 6, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Viston Shyrock Martin, Appellant Pro Se. Karri B. Atwood, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6999 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Viston Shyrock Martin 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 Martin

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

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally,

we deny Martin’s motion for 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: 07-6999 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/06/2007 Pg: 2 of 2