Court Opinion

ID: 1017283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:02:32.305375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:05.044444
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6476

TIMOTHY L. SUTTON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-03-1498)

Submitted:   September 29, 2005           Decided:   October 5, 2005

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy L. Sutton, Appellant Pro Se.      Stephen R. McCullough,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Timothy L. Sutton, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed 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      the    district       court’s       assessment      of     his

constitutional      claims       is   debatable        or   wrong      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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                  We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Sutton has not made the

requisite      showing.        Accordingly,       we    deny     a   certificate          of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.              We deny Sutton’s motion for

an evidentiary hearing and 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 -