Court Opinion

ID: 1013343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:59:39.845492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:39.226134
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6151

HAL K. LEE,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director     of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-03-396-2)

Submitted:    May 14, 2004                     Decided:   May 26, 2004

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hal K. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

             Hal K. Lee seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Lee cannot appeal

this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate

of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets

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, 537 U.S. 322, 326

(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 Lee has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Lee’s motion for appointed counsel, 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 -