Court Opinion

ID: 1015231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:29:40.726648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:09.685836
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7070

DAVID TAYLOR,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-720-3)

Submitted:   December 20, 2004            Decided:   January 11, 2005

Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           David Taylor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).   An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional    claims   is   debatable    or    wrong   and   that   any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell. 537 U.S. 322, 338

(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 Taylor has not made the requisite

showing.   Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.     We deny the motion to appoint counsel and

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 -