Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

326 F. App'x 232

Burton v. Eagleton

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 3, 2009

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2009-06-03

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee

Decided 2009-06-03

¶1 Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

¶2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

¶3 Johnny Burton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his motion to reconsider that order. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard *233 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burton 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.

¶4 DISMISSED.

/326/fappx/232 · .json · Public domain