Court Opinion

ID: 1017024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:58:20.010318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:49.185719
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6450

JUNIUS ALEXANDER SULLIVAN, JR.,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director       of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-61-1)

Submitted:   August 25, 2005               Decided:   September 1, 2005

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Junius Alexander Sullivan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Junius Alexander Sullivan, Jr., 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 both 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 (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 Sullivan 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 -