Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Albert v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Albert's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court finds that Albert did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the court dismisses Albert's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-04-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7379

    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 a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Albert's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court finds that Albert did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the court dismisses Albert's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Albert v. Director, Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Barry Albert's appeal of a district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court finds that Albert did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the court dismisses Albert's 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7379

    BARRY ALBERT,
    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-01436)

    Submitted:

    March 18, 2008

    Decided:

    April 8, 2008

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Barry Albert, Appellant Pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, OFFICE OF


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Barry Albert seeks to appeal the district courts 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.

    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.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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 Albert
    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

    To the extent Albert appeals the portion of the district


    courts order denying potential relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983
    (2000), we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in
    the reasoning of the district court. See Albert v. Dir., Dept of
    Corr., No. 1:06-cv-01436 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 2007).
    - 2 -

    You might also like