UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-8019
JOSEPH ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. A. BRAXTON, Warden; L. W. HUFFMAN, Regional
Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (CA-04-262)
Submitted: April 14, 2005 Decided: April 20, 2005
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Ralph Davis, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Armstrong seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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 both that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are 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
Armstrong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Armstrong’s motion for production of transcripts at government
expense, deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the 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
- 2 -