Court Opinion

ID: 1015662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:36:34.37762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:35.509323
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7799

JAMIE LAMONT MILES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-567)

Submitted:   February 24, 2005             Decided:    March 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Lamont Miles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Jamie Lamont Miles appeals a district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice

for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 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 Miles 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