Court Opinion

ID: 1028056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:34:26.832769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:17.117002
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-7832

JARMAL ANTHONY JOYNER,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-00626-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:    February 26, 2009             Decided:   March 5, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarmal Anthony Joyner, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Jarmal      Anthony     Joyner      seeks   to        appeal   the   district

court’s     order   denying     relief      on    his    28    U.S.C.       § 2254    (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                             See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).            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)         (2006).          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.                  See 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 Joyner

has   not    made   the    requisite       showing.            Accordingly,        we     deny

Joyner's motion for appointment of counsel, 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