Court Opinion

ID: 1021366
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:05:15.65131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:00.185993
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                 No. 06-7134

DWAYNE N. BRANCH, a/k/a Rashid El-Abdullah,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

DIRECTOR    OF        VIRGINIA     DEPARTMENT   OF
CORRECTIONS,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:04-cv-00072-MHL)

Submitted:    December 6, 2006             Decided:    December 18, 2006

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne N. Branch, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Winslow Reed, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Dwayne N. Branch seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 Branch 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

      *
      Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2000), the parties consented
to adjudication by the magistrate judge.

                                 - 2 -