Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pettrey v. Scott, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Jeffrey Allan Pettrey appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Pettrey's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court determined that reasonable jurists would not find Pettrey's constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were wrong. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7516

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Jeffrey Allan Pettrey appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Pettrey's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court determined that reasonable jurists would not find Pettrey's constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were wrong. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    Copyright:

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

    Pettrey v. Scott, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Jeffrey Allan Pettrey appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Pettrey's appeal, finding that he did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The court determined that reasonable jurists would not find Pettrey's constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were wrong. The court dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues adequately presented.

    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. 03-7516

    JEFFREY ALLAN PETTREY,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    TOM SCOTT,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-02-986-1)

    Submitted: February 19, 2004

    Decided:

    February 25, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jeffrey Allan Pettrey, Appellant Pro Se.


    Dawn Ellen Warfield,
    Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., 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:
    Jeffrey

    Allan

    Pettrey

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.


    2254 (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

    a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by


    a district court 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).

    We have independently reviewed

    the record and conclude that Pettrey has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    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