Court Opinion

ID: 1014213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:13:13.235517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:38.899282
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-6637

KEITH LEMONT SANDERS,

                                                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. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-03-411-2)

Submitted:   August 25, 2004               Decided:   September 3, 2004

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Lemont Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Keith Lemont Sanders 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

habeas corpus 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, 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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Sanders’ motion to proceed on appeal in forma

pauperis, deny his 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 -