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)
05-6779•Timothy J. Levi v. SAMUEL PRUETT, Warden of JRCC
05-6779Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 21, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6779
TIMOTHY J. LEVI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SAMUEL PRUETT, Warden of JRCC; GENE JOHNSON,
Director of Department of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-05-293-1)
Submitted: September 26, 2005 Decided: October 21, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy J. Levi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Timothy J. Levi seeks to appeal from the district court’s
order denying relief on his 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Levi
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the
motion for 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.