# Smith v. Virginia Parole Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 18, 2004 · 96 F. App'x 905

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013319

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Ronald J. Angelone, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 18, 2004
- **Citations:** 96 F. App'x 905
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Motz, Duncan
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013319

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1013319. Public record. Not legal advice.