Court Opinion

ID: 2682113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-08 07:00:30.538645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:48.024073
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6298

DONNA J. HOCKMAN,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

PHYLLIS BASKERVILLE,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00240-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:   June 26, 2014                  Decided:   June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donna J. Hockman, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Donna J. Hockman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012).          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) (2012).               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 Hockman has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly,

we deny Hockman’s motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions      are    adequately     presented     in    the

                                            2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3