# Caudell v. Virginia Parole Board Staff

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 4, 2004 · 109 F. App'x 643

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014497

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert Clayton CAUDELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD STAFF; Central Classification Board, for the Department of Corrections; Portsmouth Virginia Circuit Court, Respondents—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 4, 2004
- **Citations:** 109 F. App'x 643
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Duncan, Hamilton
- **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/1014497

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6878

ROBERT CLAYTON CAUDELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD STAFF; CENTRAL
CLASSIFICATION BOARD, for the Department of
Corrections; PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA CIRCUIT
COURT,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-281-2)

Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: October 4, 2004

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Clayton Caudell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Robert Clayton Caudell seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his successive petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Caudell has not made the

requisite showing. To the extent that Caudell’s notice of appeal

and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for

authorization to file a successive § 2254 motion, we deny

authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208

(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1014497. Public record. Not legal advice.