Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08197/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8197

DAVID VAN WORMER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Van Wormer, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8197 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/24/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Van Wormer 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 Van Wormer has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We further deny Van Wormer’s motion to vacate his 

state criminal conviction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 09-8197 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/24/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8197 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/24/2010 Pg: 3 of 3