Court Opinion

ID: 805302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-26 19:08:18+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:15.347141
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6677

RODNEY LEE RODIS,

                Petitioner- Appellant,

          v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA; WARDEN, F.C.I. BUTNER,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00544-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:   July 19, 2012                  Decided:   July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Lee Rodis, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Rodney Lee Rodis 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 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 Rodis 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 the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3