UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7597
WAVERLY K. HOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6056
WAVERLY K. HOOD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-04-325-2)
Submitted: March 11, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Waverly K. Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
These related appeals have been consolidated. In No. 04-
7597, Waverly K. Hood seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). 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 Hood has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
this appeal.
In No. 05-6056, Hood appeals the district court’s order
construing his motion for a new trial as a § 2254 petition and
dismissing it as successive and unauthorized. A certificate of
appealability is required for our review of this appeal. See
Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688-89 (4th Cir. 2004). We have
- 3 -
independently reviewed the record and conclude Hood has not made
the requisite showing for issuance of a certificate of
appealability. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny Hood’s motion for preparation of a trial
transcript at government expense, and dismiss this appeal.
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
- 4 -