Filed: Jul. 26, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6013 ALBERT LEE STEVENSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JENNIFER LANGLEY, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-03-315-1) Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert L
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6013 ALBERT LEE STEVENSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JENNIFER LANGLEY, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-03-315-1) Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Le..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6013
ALBERT LEE STEVENSON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JENNIFER LANGLEY, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-03-315-1)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., a state prisoner, 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
for claims addressed by a district court 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 his
constitutional claims are debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 337-38
(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 Stevenson has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
the motion for trial transcripts, 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 -