Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07441/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Christopher Earl Cottrell
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7441

CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:16-cv-00200-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7441 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Earl Cottrell 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 

Cottrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Cottrell’s motion for a transcript at government expense, deny his 

motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-7441 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7441 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/22/2017 Pg: 3 of 3