Colding v. Johnson ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7347
BOBBY LEE COLDING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01049-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: August 12, 2010 Decided: August 19, 2010
Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Lee Colding, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Lee Colding seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition
and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (4). The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See 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 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 Colding has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
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