Darrell Whitlock v. Director of Virginia DOC , 538 F. App'x 246 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7041
    DARRELL WHITLOCK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DOC,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (3:12-cv-00744-JRS)
    Submitted:   August 7, 2013                 Decided:   August 13, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Darrell Whitlock, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Darrell Whitlock seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order     dismissing      his   
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
          (2006)    petition     as
    successive.        The    order      is    not      appealable      unless    a     circuit
    justice    or    judge   issues      a    certificate       of   appealability.         
    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 Whitlock has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly,
    we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
    forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-7041

Citation Numbers: 538 F. App'x 246

Judges: Davis, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 8/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023