Court Opinion

ID: 1024521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:35:00.958759+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:19.169666
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-7357

EDWIN CRUZ,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:07-cv-00185-jet)

Submitted:    December 13, 2007        Decided:     December 21, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin Cruz, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney
General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Edwin Cruz 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.        See 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.         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 Cruz

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

certificate of appealability, deny Cruz’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 -