Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07590/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07590-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7590

CHARLES A. BIRDSONG,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Dir. of D.O.C.,

 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-00786-JRS)

Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Birdsong, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7590 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Birdsong seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

challenging his Virginia state convictions for aggravated 

malicious wounding and use of a firearm. 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 

Birdsong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 14-7590 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7590 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3