Samuel Harris v. Director, Virginia Department
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL E. HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:04-cv-00070-MHL)
June 8, 2009
June 25, 2009
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel E. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, Stephen R. McCullough, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Samuel E. Harris 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). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Harris has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a the appeal. and We legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
The parties consented to proceeding before the magistrate 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?