Court Opinion

ID: 2655800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-06 20:13:36.184918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:16.195278
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7396

ALBERT LEWIS PERRY, JR.,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK RANKIN HERRING, Attorney
General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; MARIE
M. VARGO, Warden of Sussex II State Prison, Waverly,
Virginia,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00327-HEH)

Submitted:   February 28, 2014             Decided:   March 6, 2014

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael March Brownlee, Patrick Michael Megaro, BROWNSTONE LAW
FIRM, PA, Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. Steven Andrew
Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Albert Lewis Perry, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    denying      relief    on    his   28    U.S.C.      § 2254    (2012)

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) (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 Perry 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

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3