Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06561/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06561-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent Lee Edwards
Appellant
Wendell W. Pixley
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6561

VINCENT LEE EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WENDELL W. PIXLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00171-GBL-IDD)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Lee Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6561 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Lee Edwards 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 

Edwards 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 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: 15-6561 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2