Lerch v. Hinkle , 351 F. App'x 838 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6522
    MICHAEL LERCH,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Greensville Correctional Center,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
    Judge. (3:08-cv-00305-MHL)
    Submitted:    September 3, 2009             Decided:   November 18, 2009
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Lerch, Appellant Pro Se.       Josephine Frances Whalen,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael      Lerch   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) (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).           A
    prisoner         satisfies        this        standard       by     demonstrating            that
    reasonable         jurists       would     find      that    any     assessment         of       the
    constitutional           claims    by    the    district      court      is     debatable         or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                      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
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                     We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lerch 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
    *
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction                                      of        the
    magistrate judge pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2006).
    2
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-6522

Citation Numbers: 351 F. App'x 838

Judges: Hamilton, King, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 11/18/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023