Puranda v. Johnson

96 F. App'x 919
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 2004
Docket04-6371
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 919 (Puranda v. Johnson) 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
Puranda v. Johnson, 96 F. App'x 919 (4th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Joseph V. Puranda seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s 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 § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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.” 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, 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 that Puranda has not made the requisite showing.

*920 Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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

*

The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 F. App'x 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puranda-v-johnson-ca4-2004.