Court Opinion

ID: 2969088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-22 09:13:53.764755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:29:19.320620
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-7696

ROBERT FIELDS,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HENRY PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:14-cv-00661-HEH)

Submitted:   February 25, 2015             Decided:   March 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Fields, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Robert       Fields      seeks      to     appeal    the   district      court’s

order    treating      his    “Motion          to     Vacate    Void    Judgment”      as    a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it on

that    basis.      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 Fields has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

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

                                                2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3