Court Opinion

ID: 1014292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:14:37.671095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:40.533722
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7023

LUNZELL VENABLE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

                            No. 04-7060

LUNZELL VENABLE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-593)

Submitted:   September 9, 2004        Decided:   September 16, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lunzell Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

            In these consolidated appeals, Lunzell Venable seeks to

appeal the district court’s orders denying his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion for appointment of

counsel.    The orders are appealable only if 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

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 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 Venable has not made the requisite showing.            Accordingly, we

deny Venable’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.     We also deny Venable’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

                                     - 3 -