Court Opinion

ID: 1014326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:15:00.765935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:41.806471
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6912

WILLIAM J. BARTZ, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-03-693-AM)

Submitted:   September 9, 2004         Decided:     September 15, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William J. Bartz, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          William John Bartz seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) as untimely.       An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding 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   his

constitutional   claims    are   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 Bartz 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 -