Cottrell v. Director, Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6501
CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00100-HEH)
Submitted: November 18, 2008 Decided: January 14, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T.
Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Earl Cottrell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
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) (2000). 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) (2000). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Cottrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny, as moot, Cottrell’s “Motion to Object to District Court’s
Nonruling on a Certificate of Appealability.” We also deny
Cottrell’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3