Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06939/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06939-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-6939

PHILIP J. OSTRANDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00634-JRS)

Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: January 15, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip J. Ostrander, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6939 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Philip J. Ostrander seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Ostrander has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

although we grant Ostrander’s motion to amend his informal 

brief, 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 

Appeal: 14-6939 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6939 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/15/2015 Pg: 3 of 3