Court Opinion

ID: 1012346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:43:46.769051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:17.861552
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7810

ANTONIO EUGENE DAVIS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

     versus

GENE JOHNSON,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-343-3)

Submitted: January 15, 2004                 Decided:   January 28, 2004

Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Eugene Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Antonio Eugene Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely 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, 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   Davis    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 -