UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6702
DUNCAN VICTOR AYEMERE IDOKOGI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United
States; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-04-230-L)
Submitted: August 12, 2004 Decided: August 19, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi seeks to appeal the
district court’s order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)
petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, and to the extent Idokogi’s petition sought
to attack his 1998 state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
denying his petition as a successive habeas petition. We dismiss
the appeal of the order transferring the case for lack of
jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may
exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291
(2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is
neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral
order. See Technosteel, L.L.C. v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151,
153-54 & n.2 (4th Cir. 2001).
We also dismiss the appeal of that part of the district
court’s order that denied Idokogi’s petition as a successive habeas
petition. 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
- 2 -
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 Idokogi has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss this portion of the appeal.
We deny Idokogi’s motions for stay pending appeal and to
place the case in abeyance. 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 -