Court Opinion

ID: 2654696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-27 01:01:19.998226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:46.424194
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7916

CALVIN FONVILLE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN WILSON, FCC Petersburg Low,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00504-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:   February 20, 2014            Decided:   February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Fonville, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Calvin Fonville seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     treating       his   28   U.S.C.          § 2241    (2012)    motion     as   a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion 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)(B) (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 motion 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 Fonville 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