Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
03-6473•Dwayne Durant v. Ronald J. Angelone
03-6473Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit16.07.2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6473
DWAYNE DURANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-546)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwayne Durant, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Durant seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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,
, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Durant has not made the requisite showing.
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 are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.