Court Opinion

ID: 1023270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:35:08.460276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:04.972339
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-7692

NORBERT K. THINNES,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00351-JRS)

Submitted:   June 27, 2007                 Decided:   July 23, 2007

Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,
for Appellant. Susan Lee Parrish, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               Norbert K. Thinnes seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and

denying     his    motion    for   reconsideration.           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 any assessment of the constitutional claims

by   the    district      court    is    debatable      or    wrong    and     that   any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable.        Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).              We have independently reviewed the

record     and    conclude      that    Thinnes   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 -