Court Opinion

ID: 1031456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 08:31:49.558243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:56.855527
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-7195

ROBERT WALLS, JR.,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,      Director   of   the   Virginia   Department   of
Corrections,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:08-cv-00500-RBS-JEB)

Submitted:    January 14, 2010               Decided:    February 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Walls, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.          Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,             Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Robert       Walls,     Jr.,     seeks      to     appeal      the   district

court’s    order    denying    relief       on   his     28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                            See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).          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)         (2006).        A

prisoner     satisfies        this        standard       by        demonstrating         that

reasonable    jurists       would     find       that    any        assessment      of     the

constitutional      claims    by     the    district         court    is   debatable        or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.                 See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                  We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walls

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