Piper Rountree v. Gene Johnson ( 2011 )

Filed: October 7, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6535
(1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)
PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent – Appellee.
O R D E R
The Court amends its opinion filed October 5, 2011, as
follows:
On page 2, second line of text -- the word “his” is
corrected to read “her.”
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6535
PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)
Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Piper Ann Rountree seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on her 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 Rountree 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3