Robert Winslow, Jr. v. Director of VDOC , 548 F. App'x 946 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7413
    ROBERT LOUIS WINSLOW, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       Norman K. Moon, Senior
    District Judge. (7:12-cv-00407-NKM-RSB)
    Submitted:   December 19, 2013             Decided:   December 24, 2013
    Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Robert Louis Winslow, Jr.,       Appellant Pro Se.       Susan Mozley
    Harris, Assistant Attorney       General, Richmond,     Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Robert        Louis    Winslow,     Jr.,      seeks       to     appeal        the
    district court’s order dismissing his 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 Winslow has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly,
    we deny Winslow’s motion for 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
    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: 13-7413

Citation Numbers: 548 F. App'x 946

Judges: Shedd, Davis, Floyd

Filed Date: 12/24/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024