Filed: Mar. 06, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7429 MARION LEON BEA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent -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-01256-TSE) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7429 MARION LEON BEA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent -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-01256-TSE) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marion..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7429
MARION LEON BEA,
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-01256-TSE)
Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marion Leon Bea, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marion Leon Bea seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition as successive. 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 Bea has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Bea’s motion for 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 -