David T. Felder v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

Filed: October 3, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6503
(1:06-cv-00683)
DAVID T. FELDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 14, 2007, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, district court information, the case
number is corrected to read “1:06-cv-00683).”
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
____________________________
Clerk

-- 1 of 3 --

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6503
DAVID T. FELDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00683)
Submitted: September 7, 2007 Decided: September 14, 2007
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David T. Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
David T. Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Felder has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Felder’s 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

-- 3 of 3 --