Court Opinion

ID: 1011377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:26:31.915022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:30.833826
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 03-6536

FRANK M. CONNELL, JR.,

                                                 Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director        of   the   Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-167-2)

Submitted:    July 24, 2003                    Decided:   August 20, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Frank M. Connell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

(2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus 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,                 , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Connell 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