Court Opinion

ID: 1013883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:08:13.229391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:57.273949
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6288

HENRY PERRY-BEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

S. K. YOUNG, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-817-AM)

Submitted:   July 16, 2004                 Decided:   July 29, 2004

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Henry Perry-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and denying his

motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e).    The orders are 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   Perry-Bey   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

                                     - 2 -