Court Opinion

ID: 1017803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:10:29.384083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:33.402873
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7517

JUAN G. EVORA,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ASHBEL T. WALL, Director, Department        of
Corrections; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-05-71-HEH)

Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 30, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan G. Evora, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Juan G. Evora seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

because he failed to first exhaust his state court remedies.             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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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,

336-38 (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 Evora 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 -