Steven Pendergrass v. Barksdale , 595 F. App'x 242 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-7346
    STEVEN P. PENDERGRASS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BARKSDALE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:14-cv-00358-LMB-TCB)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2015            Decided:    March 3, 2015
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven P. Pendergrass, Appellant Pro Se.    Eugene Paul Murphy,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven P. Pendergrass seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) 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) (2012).           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) (2012).                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
    Pendergrass 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: 14-7346

Citation Numbers: 595 F. App'x 242

Filed Date: 3/3/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023