Filed: Jun. 20, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8012 JUAN RAMON AYALA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00319) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Ramon Ayala, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8012 JUAN RAMON AYALA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GEORGE HINKLE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-00319) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Ramon Ayala, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8012
JUAN RAMON AYALA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GEORGE HINKLE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00319)
Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Ramon Ayala, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Ramon Ayala 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. 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. 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 Ayala has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ayala’s motion
for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motion for judicial notice, 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 -