Andre Drayton v. A. D. ROBINSON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7855
ANDRE DRAYTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 05-7892
ANDRE DRAYTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
A. D. ROBINSON, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-05-840-1)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Drayton, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

*The order Drayton seeks to appeal in No. 05-7855 was vacated
by the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).
Therefore, that appeal is moot. We have reviewed the district
court’s order entered on November 17, 2005, which Drayton seeks to
appeal in No. 05-7892.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Andre Drayton, a state
prisoner, seeks to appeal 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 (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 Drayton has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --