UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7661
LARRY DOTSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LARRY W. JARVIS; JERRY KILGORE; SUPREME COURT
OF VIRGINIA; STEPHEN R. MCCULLOUGH; VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS; SHEILA TOLLIVER, Buchanan
County Commonwealth's Attorney; UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT; EDWARD A. MATNEY; THOMAS W.
GOODMAN, JR.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-6-7)
Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 9, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick Wayne Adkins, Hugh Patrick Cline, Jr., CLINE, ADKINS &
CLINE, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen R. McCullough,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dotson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000),
and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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,
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 Dotson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Dotson’s motion to
transfer an additional supplement to the record because the
supplement he seeks, trial exhibit eleven, is part of the existing
record. We also deny Dotson’s motion for a pre-hearing conference
and his motion to file a pro se supplemental brief. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -