Court Opinion

ID: 813652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-14 20:31:55+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:49.291507
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-7429

THOMAS STEPHANOS VISIKIDES,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01233-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:   December 12, 2012              Decided:   December 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Stephanos Visikides, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Thomas       Stephanos     Visikides       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.       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 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 Visikides 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