Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06870/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06870-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director Dept of Corrections of Virginia
Appellee
Jeremy Joseph Ross
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6870

JEREMY JOSEPH ROSS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR DEPT OF CORRECTIONS OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01356-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: December 29, 2015 Decided: January 5, 2016

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Joseph Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6870 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeremy Joseph Ross 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. 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 

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

Ross’ motions for 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 

Appeal: 15-6870 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6870 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pg: 3 of 3