Raymond Bethel, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7615
RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00013-HEH)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
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 Bethel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Bethel’s motion for counsel. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3