Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Parsons v. Haines, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeking to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court of appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Parsons did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7383

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeking to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court of appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Parsons did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Parsons v. Haines, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeking to appeal the district court's denial of relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court of appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Parsons did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to justify issuing a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7383

    ROGER PAUL PARSONS,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM
    S.
    HAINES,
    Correctional Center,

    Warden,

    Huttonsville
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-24-2-REM)

    Submitted:

    January 27, 2006

    Decided:

    February 17, 2006

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James McCall Cagle, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.


    Colleen Anne Ford, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Roger Paul Parsons, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order adopting the report and recommendation of
    the magistrate judge to deny relief on his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    court

    issues

    The order is not appealable unless this

    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


    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).
    record

    and

    showing.

    conclude

    and

    materials

    Parsons

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    that

    We have independently reviewed the

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like