Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0241-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shawn Samuel VALDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carole F. WALLACE, Warden; Kimberly Runion, Warden, Lunenburg Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 10-7349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 17, 2011.
    Decided: April 1, 2011.
    
      Shawn Samuel Valdez, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Samuel Valdez 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Valdez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Valdez’s motion that his informal brief be filed in “Constitutional” court and 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.

DISMISSED.