Court Opinion

ID: 1019217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:32:20.013288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:23:16.010494
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7894

ALAN ARTHUR LITTLEFIELD,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GEORGE HINKLE, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-05-00419)

Submitted: April 27, 2006                       Decided: May 4, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan Arthur Littlefield, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Alan Arthur Littlefield seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) and motion to reconsider.                 The orders are 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      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 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Littlefield has not made the requisite

showing.      Accordingly,      we   deny    Littlefield’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 -