Court Opinion

ID: 1011117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:22:13.391892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:46.253094
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 03-6163

DE’SHON PITT,

                                           Petitioner -   Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-1879-AM)

Submitted:   July 10, 2003                 Decided:    July 15, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

De’shon Pitt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     De’shon    Pitt,   a   Virginia   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 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    his

constitutional   claims     are   debatable     and    that    any    dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).                  We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pitt has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pitt’s motion for

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