Newton v. Pearson

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6523 CARL D. NEWTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-419-2) Submitted: July 8, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl D. Newton, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; George Maralan Kelly, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carl D. Newton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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). 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 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, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newton 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