Court Opinion

ID: 2682132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-08 07:00:44.563768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:51.064611
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6416

WILLIAM ORLANDO SMITH,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

BENJAMIN WRIGHT,

                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-00608-MFU-RSB)

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

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            William      Orlando     Smith       seeks    to    appeal      the   district

court’s    order    dismissing       as     successive      his      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 Smith 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