Court Opinion

ID: 1015378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:32:07.504403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:13.342070
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-7116

EDWARD L. HORNSBY,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

L. SOLOMAN, Superintendent,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-788)

Submitted:   January 27, 2005               Decided:   February 2, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward L. Hornsby, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Edward L. Hornsby seeks to appeal a district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.          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 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 Hornsby 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 -