Hensley v. Director of Department of Corrections , 405 F. App'x 777 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6880
    VANCE SCOTT HENSLEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       James C. Turk, Senior
    District Judge. (7:10-cv-00003-jct-mfu)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 27, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Vance Scott Hensley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Vance      Scott     Hensley       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.             
    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 Hensley 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: 10-6880

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 777

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024