Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (March 15, 2004)
Docket number: 03-7523
Permanent Link:
http://vlex.com/vid/lash-v-commonwealth-of-18198549
Id. vLex: VLEX-18198549
Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 2253 - Sec. 2253. Appeal
U.S. Supreme Court - Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003)
U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUITNo. 03-7523 CHRISTOPHER L. LASH, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, DistrictJudge. (CA-03-678-AM)Submitted: February 25, 2004 Decided: March 15, 2004Before WIDENER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Christopher L. Lash, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Christopher L. Lash, Sr., seeks to appeal the district courtÂ’s order denying relief without prejudice on his petitionfiled under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be takenfrom the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuitjustice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issueabsent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutionalright.§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies thisstandard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find thathis constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositiveprocedural rulings by the district court are also debatable orwrong. SeeMiller-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 therecord and conclude that Lash has not made the requisite showing.Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss theappeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legalcontentions are adequately presented in the materials before thecourt and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSEDTry vLex for FREE for 3 days
Access legal information from United States including:
Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.
3
days of Free Access