Vincent Edwards v. Wendell Pixley ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6561
VINCENT LEE EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WENDELL W. PIXLEY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-00171-GBL-IDD)
Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Lee Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vincent Lee Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 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
Edwards 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 presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
2