UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7379
BARRY ALBERT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01436)
Submitted: March 18, 2008 Decided: April 8, 2008
Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry Albert, Appellant Pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barry Albert seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Albert
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
*
To the extent Albert appeals the portion of the district
court’s order denying potential relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(2000), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in
the reasoning of the district court. See Albert v. Dir., Dep’t of
Corr., No. 1:06-cv-01436 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2007).
- 2 -