UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7580
MICHAEL CHARLES WEASE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CA-03-560-2)
Submitted: July 7, 2004 Decided: October 28, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Charles Wease, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as successive.* 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 Wease has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
To the extent that Wease’s notice of appeal and appellate
brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a
successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
*
By order filed April 5, 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 -
124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). 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 -