Court Opinion

ID: 1013408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:00:40.323086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:43.796275
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6461

RICHARD LEE HARRIS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-187-7-JCT)

Submitted:   May 12, 2004                   Decided:   June 2, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Lee Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Richard Lee Harris 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 §

2254   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 Harris 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 -