Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06198/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06198-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew M. Jacobs
Appellant
Virginia Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6198

ANDREW M. JACOBS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00366-REP)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew M. Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6198 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew M. Jacobs seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies, as 

well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration.*

 * Because the record clearly establishes that exhaustion did 

not occur, the orders are final. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. 

Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (1993).

 The orders are 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). 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 Jacobs has not made the requisite showing. 

Appeal: 10-6198 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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: 10-6198 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3