Van Wormer v. Diggs , 433 F. App'x 147 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6135
DAVID VAN WORMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-6236
DAVID VAN WORMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Van Wormer, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, David Van Wormer seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition,
denying his motion to compel production of state court records,
and denying his motions to withdraw his state court guilty plea
and for a new trial. The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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.
3
In his informal briefs, Van Wormer has failed to
address the district court’s reasons for denying the various
motions. Therefore, Van Wormer has forfeited appellate review
of the district court’s rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
these appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4