Chapman v. Wallace , 406 F. App'x 713 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7335
    BRIAN RICHARD CHAPMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    C. F. WALLACE, Warden; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
    LUNENBURG CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.  Samuel G. Wilson, District
    Judge. (7:10-cv-00004-sgw-mfu)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010            Decided:   December 29, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Brian Richard Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.          Alice Theresa
    Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Brian        Richard    Chapman      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) (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 Chapman 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: 10-7335

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 713

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024