Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06068/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert J. Arrington
Appellant
Virginia Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6068

ALBERT J. ARRINGTON,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-01637-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert J. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert J. Arrington seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without 

prejudice as successive. 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 

Arrington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6068 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3