Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Fleming v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals by Gregory Fleming, a state prisoner, of a magistrate judge's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals were dismissed because Fleming did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the claims were procedurally barred or that the rulings were incorrect. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7488

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals by Gregory Fleming, a state prisoner, of a magistrate judge's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals were dismissed because Fleming did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the claims were procedurally barred or that the rulings were incorrect. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views3 pages

    Fleming v. Commonwealth of VA, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes two consolidated appeals by Gregory Fleming, a state prisoner, of a magistrate judge's denial of his petitions for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals were dismissed because Fleming did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required for a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and found that reasonable jurists would not debate that the claims were procedurally barred or that the rulings were incorrect. The court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7488

    GREGORY D. FLEMING,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 03-7698

    GREGORY D. FLEMING,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    David G. Lowe, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-02-925-3; CA-02-774)

    Submitted:

    March 11, 2004

    Decided: March 17, 2004

    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gregory D. Fleming, Appellant Pro Se.


    Richard Bain Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    In these consolidated appeals, Gregory D. Fleming, a
    state prisoner, seeks to appeal the magistrate judges orders
    denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).*
    judge

    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or

    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1) (2000).

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    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 (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 the

    record in each case and conclude that Fleming has not made the
    requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

    pauperis in No. 03-7698, deny a certificate of appealability, and


    dismiss the appeals.
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *

    The parties consented to the magistrate judges jurisdiction


    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).
    - 3 -

    You might also like