Court Opinion

ID: 1014233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:13:25.831078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:39.453916
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-6742

MARSHALL BRAILSFORD,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-1568)

Submitted:   August 26, 2004             Decided:   September 2, 2004

Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marshall Brailsford, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Marshall Brailsford seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).   An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Brailsford has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

                               - 2 -