Court Opinion

ID: 1014656
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:20:15.557322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:54.686702
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7799

BOBBY LEE HURLEY,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

LARRY JARVIS,      Warden,   Bland   Correctional
Center,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-821)

Submitted:   August 4, 2004                 Decided:   October 25, 2004

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby Lee Hurley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Bobby Lee Hurley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion to alter

judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) seeking relief from the

underlying denial of his petition 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004).                   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 Hurley 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 -