Blankenship v. Baskerville , 103 F. App'x 733 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7681
MELVIN WAYNE BLANKENSHIP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden, Powhatan
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-691-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: July 19, 2004
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Melvin Wayne Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen B. Martin,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Melvin Wayne Blankenship seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition. The district court granted a certificate of
appealability on the three issues raised by Blankenship on appeal:
(1) whether the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence relating
to statements by Commonwealth witness, Kevin Cooke; (2) whether
counsel was ineffective for not disclosing a conflict of interest;
and (3) whether the district court erred in refusing to sever the
trial of Blankenship and his brother.
This Court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of
habeas relief based on a state court record. Bell v. Ozmint, 332
F.3d 229, 233 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct.
1155 (2004). Once a certificate of appealability has issued,
habeas corpus relief may be granted under § 2254 only if a state
court’s decision on the merits of a claim for post-conviction
relief “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application
of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or
“an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(2); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000)
(discussing § 2254(d)(1)); Wilson v. Ozmint, 352 F.3d 847, 855 (4th
Cir. 2003), amended on other grounds by 357 F.3d 461 (4th Cir.
2004), and petition for cert. filed, Apr. 15, 2004 (No. 03-9909).
- 2 -
We have independently reviewed the record in light of
Blankenship’s claims and conclude that the district court did not
err in denying habeas relief. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. While we grant Blankenship’s motion for an
extension of time to file a reply brief, we deny his motion to
appoint counsel. 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.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -