UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7811
STEPHEN M. LINEHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 04-6026
STEPHEN M. LINEHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-386)
Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen M. Lineham, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Stephen M. Lineham seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000), and denying reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a § 2254 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, 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 Lineham 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
- 3 -