Court Opinion

ID: 615569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-10-18 19:06:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:34.166350
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-7055

JOEL A. VAUGHAN,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                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-00185-JCC-IDD)

Submitted:   October 13, 2011              Decided:   October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joel A. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Joel A. Vaughan 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 Vaughan 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