Filed: Aug. 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6707 DANIEL T. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-1525-1) Submitted: July 2, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel T. Thom
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6707 DANIEL T. THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-1525-1) Submitted: July 2, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel T. Thoma..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6707
DANIEL T. THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PAGE TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-03-1525-1)
Submitted: July 2, 2004 Decided: August 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel T. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daniel T. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely.
Thomas cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice
issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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 Thomas 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
- 2 -