Court Opinion

ID: 1025927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:57:57.518398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:34.878309
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7615

JAMES REINKE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:06-cv-00696-HEH)

Submitted:   May 30, 2008                  Decided:   June 12, 2008

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Reinke, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           James Reinke seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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.        See 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.        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 Reinke

has not made the requisite showing.          Accordingly, while we grant

Reinke’s motion to amend, we 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 -