Willard F. Mears v. JACK LEE, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6280
WILLARD F. MEARS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JACK LEE, Warden; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, Classification Service,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-450-7)
Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: July 1, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willard F. Mears, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
William F. Mears seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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). A habeas appellant meets 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, 326 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). Upon review of the materials before the
court, we conclude that Mears has not made the required 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 --