Court Opinion

ID: 2654680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-27 01:01:07.562407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:46.241615
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7675

TRAVIS JAMES WEBB,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00792-JRS)

Submitted:   February 20, 2014            Decided:   February 26, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis James Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Travis James Webb 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.            See     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 Webb has not made the requisite showing.                        Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motions

for transcripts at government expense and for a subpoena duces

tecum, and dismiss the appeal.                 We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

                                           2
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

                                                    DISMISSED

                              3