UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6878
ROBERT CLAYTON CAUDELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD STAFF; CENTRAL
CLASSIFICATION BOARD, for the Department of
Corrections; PORTSMOUTH VIRGINIA CIRCUIT
COURT,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-281-2)
Submitted: September 17, 2004 Decided: October 4, 2004
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Clayton Caudell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Clayton Caudell 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 Caudell has not made the
requisite showing. To the extent that Caudell’s notice of appeal
and appellate brief could be construed as a motion for
authorization to file a successive § 2254 motion, we deny
authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 2 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -