Willie Loyd, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6542
WILLIE SANFORD LOYD, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JAMES A. CALES, JR., Judge;
MORTON V. WHITLOW, Judge; BEN WRIGHT, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01327-TSE-TRJ)
Submitted: July 17, 2012 Decided: July 31, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Sanford Loyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Sanford Loyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on 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 Loyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Loyd’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
for a transcript, 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3