Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Entsminger v. VA Dept Corrections, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Wayne Entsminger's appeal of a district court order that granted summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Corrections and denied Entsminger's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that Entsminger did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Entsminger's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7418

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Wayne Entsminger's appeal of a district court order that granted summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Corrections and denied Entsminger's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that Entsminger did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Entsminger's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Entsminger v. VA Dept Corrections, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Travis Wayne Entsminger's appeal of a district court order that granted summary judgment to the Virginia Department of Corrections and denied Entsminger's petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that Entsminger did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed Entsminger's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7418

    TRAVIS WAYNE ENTSMINGER,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-750-7)

    Submitted: January 26, 2006

    Decided: February 2, 2006

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Travis Wayne Entsminger, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Christopher Hoppe,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Travis Wayne Entsminger seeks to appeal the district
    courts order granting Respondents motion for summary judgment and
    denying relief on Entsmingers petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000).

    The order is not appealable 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, 336-38 (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 and conclude that Entsminger has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like