Thomas Visikides v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 480 F. App'x 733 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6415
THOMAS STEPHANOS VISIKIDES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01234-JCC-TCB)
Submitted: July 20, 2012 Decided: August 16, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Stephanos Visikides, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Stephanos Visikides seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) 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) (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 Visikides has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
*
We take judicial notice of Visikides’s response to the
district court’s November 15, 2011 order, which was docketed
inadvertently in another of Visikides’s federal habeas actions.
See United States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, 415 n.14 (4th Cir.
2010).
2
although we grant Visikides’s motion to amend his informal
brief, 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 the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3