# Mitchell v. Virginia Parole Board

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 17, 2004 · 104 F. App'x 343

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014151

## Case

- **Full name:** Lewis Isaiah MITCHELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 17, 2004
- **Citations:** 104 F. App'x 343
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Williams, Gregory
- **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/1014151

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6428

LEWIS ISAIAH MITCHELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-03-173)

Submitted: July 14, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Isaiah Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Lewis Isaiah Mitchell 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 habeas corpus 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 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 Mitchell 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 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014151. Public record. Not legal advice.