UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6694
NOLIE DEAL SAMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-7545
NOLIE DEAL SAMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-401-2)
Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: May 21, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nolie Deal Sampson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
PER CURIAM:
Nolie Deal Sampson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 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 Sampson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeals. Sampson’s motions to
supplement the record and to remand are denied. 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 -