Court Opinion

ID: 1026140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:01:30.602836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:47.143187
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6535

NICHOLAS E. CARDEN,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DAVIS, Warden,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:08-cv-00171-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:   June 16, 2008                 Decided:   July 11, 2008

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas E. Carden, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Nicholas    E.     Carden   moves    for    a      certificate    of

appealability, seeking to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.             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 Carden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we

deny Carden’s motions for appointment of counsel and for relief

audita querela, his “Motion to Request Order from Court to Consider

Petition,” and all other pending motions.             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 -