Court Opinion

ID: 1011357
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:26:18.526423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:28.768717
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 03-6618

JAMES MALLARD,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

J. COSTELLO,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-03-28)

Submitted:   August 14, 2003                 Decided:   August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Mallard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      James Mallard seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).                  The

order is 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    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,                  , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Mallard 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

                                     2