Court Opinion

ID: 1018227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:17:05.665781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:01.112830
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-7229

TERENCE CLEMENTS,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-153-7-JLK)

Submitted:   December 21, 2005             Decided:   January 20, 2006

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terence Clements, Appellant Pro Se.      Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Terence Clements, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).   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 Clements has not made the requisite

showing.   Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

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 -