Court Opinion

ID: 217763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-05-31 18:27:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:33.974638
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-7645

CHARLIE SLOAN,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                 Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00301-jlk-mfu)

Submitted:   May 26, 2011                  Decided:   May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlie Sloan, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Charlie    Sloan     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     Sloan    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