Court Opinion

ID: 1015474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:33:42.083489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:34.760784
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-7762

NATHANIEL BRANDT ROBINSON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PAGE TRUE, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.   James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-462)

Submitted:   February 9, 2005           Decided:    February 17, 2005

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Brandt Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.      Amy L. Marshall,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Nathaniel Brandt Robinson, 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 Robinson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -