Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07480/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Lee Everage
Appellant
Benjamin Wright
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7480

MICHAEL LEE EVERAGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BENJAMIN WRIGHT, Chief Warden, Greensville Correctional 

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00510-JCC-JFA)

Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Everage, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Uberman, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7480 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Everage seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

Everage has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Everage’s motions for a certificate of appealability, to 

answer interrogatories, and for a subpoena duces tecum, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7480 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7480 Doc: 18 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 3 of 3