Court Opinion

ID: 2834725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-02 19:01:03.988767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:14.708739
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 15-6482

TONY FOSTER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

TRACY S. RAY,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00645-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:   August 24, 2015                 Decided:   September 2, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Foster, Appellant Pro Se.        Craig Stallard,          Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Tony     Foster       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

Foster 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