Court Opinion

ID: 219270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-06-21 19:05:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:40.035854
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-6317

MARVIN MAURICE PARKER, II,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00442-LMB-TRJ)

Submitted:   June 16, 2011                   Decided:    June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and     GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Maurice Parker, II, Appellant Pro Se.            Joshua Mikell
Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,          Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Marvin       Maurice     Parker,      II,   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 Parker 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3