Court Opinion

ID: 1025158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:45:18.391599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:42.408490
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7470

ROGER EMMETT CLINE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WILLIAM M. FOX, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00124-FPS)

Submitted:   February 28, 2008             Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Emmett Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Roger Emmett Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as successive.

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 Cline has not

made the requisite showing.   Accordingly, we deny Cline’s motions

for 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 -