Opinion

Smith v. Virginia Parole Board

  • 96 F. App'x 905
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 18, 2004
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Wilkinson, Motz, Duncan
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.3%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7942

JOHNATHAN LEE X SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Director; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate

Judge. (CA-02-168)

Submitted: May 13, 2004 Decided: May 18, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Johnathan Lee X Smith seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’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 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 Smith 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

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.