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)
05-7418•Travis Wayne Entsminger v. Virginia Department of Corrections
05-7418Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.02.2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7418
TRAVIS WAYNE ENTSMINGER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-750-7)
Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Travis Wayne Entsminger, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Travis Wayne Entsminger seeks to appeal the district
court’s order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and
denying relief on Entsminger’s petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38 (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 Entsminger 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 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.