Court Opinion

ID: 1022244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:19:09.644079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:46.368419
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7653

JAMES DEVON POWELL,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

VANESSA   ADAMS,   Warden;    STATE   OF    NORTH
CAROLINA,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00335-BO).

Submitted:   March 29, 2007                 Decided:   April 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Devon Powell, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

               James Devon Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.               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 any assessment of the constitutional claims

by   the   district      court   is   debatable       or   wrong    and   that   any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable.       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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Powell 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 -