Court Opinion

ID: 1019220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:32:21.934402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:16.924095
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-7808

KEVIN DEWAYNE GRAHAM,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

G.   K.    WASHINGTON,      Warden   Buckingham
Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-1124-1)

Submitted: April 27, 2006                         Decided: May 4, 2006

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin DeWayne Graham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Kevin DeWayne Graham, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying without prejudice relief on his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).       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 would find that the district court’s assessment

of his constitutional claims 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 (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 Graham has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny 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 -