Case Name: Nathaniel Lee DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-06
Citations: 437 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 11-6504
Parties: Nathaniel Lee DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Lee DAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-6504.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 6, 2011.
Nathaniel Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Lee Davis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Davis' "motion for relief from detainer," 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.