UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6851
GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-326-2)
Submitted: August 30, 2004 Decided: September 14, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
George Samuel Green, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his successive petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for lack of jurisdiction.* 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 Green has not made the
requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. To the
extent that Green’s notice of appeal and appellate brief could be
construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254
*
By order filed January 6, 2004, this appeal was placed in
abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent
decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no
longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
- 2 -
motion, we deny authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340
F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 2003 WL
22232622 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03-6548). 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 -