Court Opinion

ID: 1014812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:23:06.629717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:59.352766
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6851

WILLIAM HOWARD FREEMAN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of
Corrections,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-402-AM)

Submitted:   November 10, 2004         Decided:     November 24, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Howard Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            William Howard Freeman seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his petition 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   Freeman   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 -