Freddy Wambach v. George Hinkle

Filing 920080402

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7665

FREDDY L. WAMBACH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GEORGE HINKLE, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Respondents - Appellees, and CLAUDE M. HILTON, U.S. District Judge, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00714-TSE)

Submitted:

March 27, 2008

Decided:

April 2, 2008

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freddy L. Wambach, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Freddy L. Wambach seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

procedurally defaulted.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a

substantial

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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and has not made the requisite showing.

Wambach

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 -