Court Opinion

ID: 1010777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:16:45.439607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:35.138423
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6143

ANTHONY BERNARD PAGE,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-862)

Submitted:   May 29, 2003                   Decided:   June 3, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Bernard Page, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Anthony B. Page, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing as successive his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a § 2254 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 684 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Page has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Page’s motion for

a certificate of appealability to the United States Supreme Court,

deny his “Rule 22 express request and motion” for a certificate of

appealability, 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