Court Opinion

ID: 1012935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:52:46.448936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:20.542052
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7770

ANTHONY RUMONT ROBERTS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden,
Nottoway Correctional Center,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-1072)

Submitted:   March 25, 2004                 Decided:   March 31, 2004

Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Rumont Roberts, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Anthony Rumont Roberts, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) petition, and a subsequent order denying his motion for

reconsideration.    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 Roberts 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 -