UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6703
ROBERT C. GESFORD, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-03-827-7)
Submitted: August 25, 2004 Decided: September 15, 2004
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert C. Gesford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert C. Gesford, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 Gesford 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
*
One of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
Gesford asserts on appeal, as well as his claim of improper
interrogation and judicial misconduct, were not raised before the
district court. As Gesford has offered no exceptional
circumstances justifying this failure, we are foreclosed from
considering these claims on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1
F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the
first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional
circumstances).
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -