Calvin Vines v. Gene Johnson , 451 F. App'x 277 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6694
    CALVIN JERMAINE VINES,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:10-cv-00775-LMB-JFA)
    Submitted:   October 18, 2011             Decided:   October 21, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin        Jermaine    Vines      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    Vines    has    not    made    the       requisite     showing.
    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
    the appeal.         We deny Vines’s motion to appoint counsel.                             We
    dispense     with        oral   argument      because         the     facts    and    legal
    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: 11-6694

Citation Numbers: 451 F. App'x 277

Judges: Diaz, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 10/21/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023