Court Opinion

ID: 1021480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:07:19.750692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:51.727473
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 06-7898

LARRY DARNELL SPEARS,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR OF THE 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. (1:04-cv-01198-TSE-LO)

Submitted:   January 3, 2007                 Decided:   January 12, 2007

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Darnell Spears, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Larry Darnell Spears seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his request to reopen for consideration his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition.             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 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.

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     Spears    has   not    made     the    requisite      showing.

Accordingly,      we    deny     Spears’     request    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 -