Court Opinion

ID: 811077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-10-31 19:45:49+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:40.149063
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6868

ALTON WADDELL EL,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN, POCAHONTAS STATE CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00475-TSE-IDD)

Submitted:   September 21, 2012            Decided:   October 31, 2012

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton Waddell El, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Alton Waddell El seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 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)(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    (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 Waddell El has not made the requisite showing.                    Because all

available transcripts are part of the record before the court,

we deny Waddell El’s motions for the preparation of transcripts

at Government expense.           We deny a certificate of appealability,

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

                                           2
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

                                    3