UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7598
EDUARD LORENZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES E. DAVIS, III,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cv-00940-JCC-TCB)
Submitted: November 3, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eduard Lorenz, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eduard Lorenz 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 Lorenz has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny
Lorenz’s motion for injunctive relief. 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