Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06289/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmy Dean Rios
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6289

JIMMY DEAN RIOS,

Petitioner – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (1:10-mc-00002-GCM)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jimmy Dean Rios, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6289 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Dean Rios seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his motion for an extension of time to 

file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 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 motion 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 Rios has not made the requisite showing. 

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 

Appeal: 10-6289 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6289 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/02/2010 Pg: 3 of 3