Court Opinion

ID: 1018395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:19:30.215483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:05.223840
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 05-7293

JULEIAN CAPPELL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. 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, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-20-1)

Submitted: January 26, 2006                 Decided:   February 1, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juleian Cappell, Appellant Pro Se.      Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Juleian Cappell 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 the district

court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are likewise debatable.              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 Cappell 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 -