Court Opinion

ID: 1012788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:50:35.650061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:10.930444
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7811

STEPHEN M. LINEHAM,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

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

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

                              No. 04-6026

STEPHEN M. LINEHAM,

                                            Petitioner -   Appellant,

          versus

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

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-386)

Submitted:   March 11, 2004                 Decided: March 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen M. Lineham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

                              - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

               Stephen M. Lineham seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000), and denying reconsideration.               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   Lineham   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

                                        - 3 -