Court Opinion

ID: 1020548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:52:56.808177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:30.444424
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 05-7918

DALLAS MCCLANAHAN,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

A. HOLLAR,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-05-345)

Submitted:   August 30, 2006             Decided:   September 28, 2006

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dallas McClanahan, Appellant Pro Se.     Josephine Frances Whalen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Dallas McClanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

order is not appealable 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     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.        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 McClanahan has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny

McClanahan’s motion for appointment of counsel 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 -