Court Opinion

ID: 1022591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:24:42.253288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:15.506462
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7705

RICHARD DEAN BUNDY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

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

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-00635-REP)

Submitted:   May 4, 2007                    Decided:   May 16, 2007

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Dean Bundy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Richard Dean Bundy seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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   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 Bundy has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.        We also deny Bundy’s motion

for appointment of counsel. 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 -