Court Opinion

ID: 2803069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-22 19:02:39.536868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:47:49.092124
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-6147

DAVID LINWOOD PULLEN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR, VA Department of Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   James P. Jones, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00211-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:   May 19, 2015                      Decided: May 22, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Linwood Pullen, Appellant Pro       Se.    Christopher P.
Schandevel, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY        GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        David Linwood Pullen 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.           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

Pullen 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