Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07187/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07187-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Braxton
Appellee
Zachary Hamlett
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7187

ZACHARY HAMLETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DANIEL BRAXTON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:07-cv-00065)

Submitted: January 22, 2008 Decided: February 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zachary Hamlett, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE

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

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Hamlett 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 Hamlett

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: 07-7187 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 2