Gregory L. Raymer, Sr v. W. J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7286
GREGORY L. RAYMER, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
W. J. TOWNLEY, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-938)
Submitted: January 7, 2004 Decided: February 19, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory L. Raymer, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gregory L. Raymer, Sr., moves for a certificate of
appealability in order 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 § 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 Raymer has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Raymer’s motion for
appointment of counsel, 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 --