Court Opinion

ID: 149445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-24 17:45:26+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:10.779814
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-8197

DAVID VAN WORMER,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:   June 17, 2010                       Decided:   June 24, 2010

Before MOTZ and      KING,   Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Van Wormer, Appellant Pro Se.     Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               David Van Wormer 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) (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 Van Wormer has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We further deny Van Wormer’s motion to vacate his

state    criminal        conviction.        We    dispense     with    oral    argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

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

decisional process.

                                                       DISMISSED

                               3