Vizzini v. Warden, MD House of Correction

Fourth Circuit

Vizzini v. Warden, MD House of Correction

96 F. App'x 157

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 2004

Docket03-7825

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 157 (Vizzini v. Warden, MD House of Correction) 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

Vizzini v. Warden, MD House of Correction, 96 F. App'x 157 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Vizzini, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion for reconsideration and dismissing as untimely Vizzini’s 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 *158 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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, 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 Vizzini 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.

DISMISSED

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Vizzini, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Respondent’s motion for reconsideration and dismissing as untimely Vizzini’s 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 *158 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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, 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 Vizzini 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.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vizzini-v-warden-md-house-of-correction-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack