UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6108
HARRY BROCKWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RON ANGELONE, Director of the Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-230-AM)
Submitted: May 19, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry Brockwell, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Harry Brockwell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2000). Habeas corpus relief may be granted only if the state
court’s decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of,
clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court,
or the state court’s decision was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). This Court may
only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The relevant inquiry is whether “‘reasonable
jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Brockwell has not made the requisite 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