Dollison v. Angelone

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Dollison v. Angelone

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6892

WILLIE DOLLISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-02-226-2)

Submitted: October 31, 2003 Decided: November 12, 2003

Before WIDENER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Dollison, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Willie Dollison, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on 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 for claims

addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 683

(4th Cir.), cert.

denied,

534 U.S. 941

(2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Dollison 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished