Randall Keystone v. Director, D.O.C. , 507 F. App'x 297 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7558
    RANDALL J. KEYSTONE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR, D.O.C.,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:12-cv-00018-JCT-RSB)
    Submitted:   January 22, 2013              Decided: January 24, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Randall J. Keystone, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Randall       J.   Keystone        seeks   to    appeal       the    district
    court’s    order     denying      relief   on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254        (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                         See 28 U.S.C.
    § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).            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) (2006).                 When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by    demonstrating        that   reasonable       jurists        would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,        
    537 U.S. 322
    ,       336-38
    (2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural
    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              Slack,
    529 U.S. at 484-85.
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
    that Keystone 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7558

Citation Numbers: 507 F. App'x 297

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Thacker, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 1/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023