Court Opinion

ID: 615862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-21 19:37:28+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:35.203858
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6694

CALVIN JERMAINE VINES,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

GENE JOHNSON,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00775-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:   October 18, 2011             Decided:   October 21, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Calvin        Jermaine    Vines      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.                             See 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    Vines    has    not    made    the       requisite     showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.         We deny Vines’s motion to appoint counsel.                             We

dispense     with        oral   argument      because         the     facts    and    legal

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3