Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07242/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07242-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grady J. Haynes
Appellee
James Robert Kozoman
Appellant
State of North Carolina

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7242

JAMES ROBERT KOZOMAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GRADY J. HAYNES,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:06-hc-02112-D)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Robert Kozoman, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7242 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Robert Kozoman 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 Kozoman

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: 07-7242 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2