Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07563/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07563-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Grethen
Appellant
Western Regional Director
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7563

MARK A. GRETHEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (7:08-cv-00443-jct-mfu)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Grethen, Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7563 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. Grethen 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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grethen

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Grethen’s motion for a certificate of appealability, grant 

Grethen’s motions to amend his informal brief, and dismiss the 

appeal. We 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

Appeal: 09-7563 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 2