UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7349
ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. DUNNING, Sheriff of Alexandria City
Jail; UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; PAUL EBERT,
Commonwealth’s Attorney of Prince William
City,
Respondents - Appellee.
No. 04-7520
ANTHONY MCQUEEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. DUNNING, Sheriff of Alexandria City
Jail; UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA; PAUL EBERT,
Commonwealth’s Attorney of Prince William
City,
Respondents - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-719-AM)
Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 2, 2005
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony McQueen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McQueen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his habeas
corpus petition and denying his motion for appointment of counsel
and to place the case in abeyance pending the outcome in his
criminal proceeding. An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a habeas corpus 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 McQueen has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny McQueen’s motions for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 -