Lunzell Venable v. Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7023
LUNZELL VENABLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-7060
LUNZELL VENABLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-593)
Submitted: September 9, 2004 Decided: September 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lunzell Venable, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Lunzell Venable seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion for appointment of
counsel. The orders are appealable only if 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 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 Venable has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Venable’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Venable’s motion for appointment
of counsel. 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 --