Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07379/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07379-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Albert
Appellant
Director, Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7379

BARRY ALBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01436)

Submitted: March 18, 2008 Decided: April 8, 2008

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Albert, Appellant Pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7379 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*

To the extent Albert appeals the portion of the district

court’s order denying potential relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2000), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in

the reasoning of the district court. See Albert v. Dir., Dep’t of

Corr., No. 1:06-cv-01436 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2007).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Barry Albert 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 Albert

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: 07-7379 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 2