Court Opinion

ID: 212929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-03-21 20:04:05+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:13.369095
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-7646

ELLIOTT LEWIS FIELDS, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director Virginia Department of Corrections,
et al.,

                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-00839-LMB-IDD)

Submitted:   March 9, 2011                 Decided:   March 21, 2011

Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elliott Lewis Fields, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Elliott       Lewis     Fields,     Jr.,     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 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 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 Fields 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