Coles v. Angelone

86 F. App'x 581
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 2004
Docket03-7559
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 F. App'x 581 (Coles v. Angelone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Coles v. Angelone, 86 F. App'x 581 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Timothy Lee Coles seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Coles cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will *582 not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Coles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coles’ motion for injunctive relief, 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
86 F. App'x 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coles-v-angelone-ca4-2004.