Court Opinion

ID: 1024436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:33:29.29629+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:17.491009
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-7438

ROLAND EVANS,

                                              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. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00025-WDK)

Submitted:   November 21, 2007             Decided:   December 4, 2007

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gail Avery Ball, BALL LEGAL FIRM, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellant. Jonathan Mark Larcomb, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Roland Evans seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on 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 Evans 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

      *
      Because Evans properly raised his allegations of juror
misconduct on direct appeal, the district court’s ruling that this
claim was procedurally defaulted is debatable or wrong.
Nevertheless, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability as
to this issue because our review of the record leaves no
uncertainty that the state court denial of this claim did not
result in a decision contrary to, or an unreasonable application
of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)
(2000).

                                   - 2 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                              - 3 -