Court Opinion

ID: 1026111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:00:54.81509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:45.457260
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6114

TROY ALLEN LINGLE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent of Mountain View Correctional
Institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:05-cv-00226-RLV)

Submitted:   June 26, 2008                  Decided:   July 1, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Robinson Brewer, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Troy Allen Lingle seeks to appeal the district court’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 Lingle has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Lingle’s motion

for 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 -