The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-6085•Laron A. Moten v. Warden of the Augusta Correctional Center
03-6085Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitApr 17, 2003
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6085
LARON A. MOTEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN OF THE AUGUSTA CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-1087)
Submitted: April 7, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Laron A. Moten, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* Moten does not challenge on appeal the district court’s
dismissal of two claims in a prior order for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or the court’s dismissal of one claim on procedural
default grounds. Moten has waived appellate review of these claims
by failing to raise them in his informal brief. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
2
PER CURIAM:
Laron A. Moten, a state prisoner, 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 on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000);
see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moten has not
satisfied this standard. 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.