Court Opinion

ID: 1015889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:40:23.436896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:28.409045
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-7803

RONALD FONTANES,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PAGE TRUE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-43)

Submitted:   March 25, 2005                 Decided:   April 15, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Fontanes, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Ronald Fontanes seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss 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 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 Fontanes has not made the

requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny Fontanes’ motion for

appointment of counsel, 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 -