Court Opinion

ID: 145409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-05-03 19:25:47+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:55.571534
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-8095

KELVIN L. HARGROVE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01242-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:   April 29, 2010                    Decided:   May 3, 2010

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin L. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Kelvin       L.    Hargrove       seeks      to     appeal           the    district

court’s    order    denying     relief       on    his    28    U.S.C.          § 2254     (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                                 See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).            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)             (2006).          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.                  See 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

Hargrove 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