Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06313/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arthur Woodson
Appellant
Wright
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6313

ARTHUR WOODSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

M. WRIGHT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-01019-CMH-JFA)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 23, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6313 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Woodson 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 

Woodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Woodson’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for a 

certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 15-6313 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6313 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3