Frank M. Connell, Jr v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6536
FRANK M. CONNELL, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-02-167-2)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank M. Connell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Frank M. Connell, Jr., 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 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 Connell 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 --