Court Opinion

ID: 619027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-12-15 19:36:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:47.234966
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-6854

LUCIAN OPREA,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00920-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:   December 6, 2011               Decided:   December 15, 2011

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lucian Oprea, Appellant Pro Se.       Craig Stallard,         Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Lucian     Oprea   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).         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     Oprea    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

                                               2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3