Court Opinion

ID: 1018923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:27:57.189064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.767343
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7682

DAVID LOVE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

TODD W. PINION,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-397)

Submitted: March 30, 2006                      Decided: April 7, 2006

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Love, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              David Love 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 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 Love has not made the

requisite     showing.        Accordingly,     we   deny    a   certificate     of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.               Love’s motion to submit

evidence is denied.          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 -