Court Opinion

ID: 625629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-03-19 19:08:42+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:12.314680
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-7544

AARON SMITH,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-01191-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:   March 15, 2012                 Decided:   March 19, 2012

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Aaron Smith 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we

deny    Smith’s       motion    for   a   certificate     of    appealability        and

dismiss the appeal.            We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal    contentions      are     adequately    presented      in    the

                                            2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3