In Re: Rios ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6289
    JIMMY DEAN RIOS,
    Petitioner – Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:10-mc-00002-GCM)
    Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 2, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jimmy Dean Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jimmy Dean Rios seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his motion for an extension of time to
    file a 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) (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    motion       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        Rios       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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6289

Judges: Niemeyer, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/2/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024