Court Opinion

ID: 2659191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-01 19:14:57.386697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:52.434719
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7840

CAVONZA ARVEL TEASLEY,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

RANDALL MATHENA, Warden,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00715-GBL-TRJ)

Submitted:   March 27, 2014                  Decided:    April 1, 2014

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cavonza Arvel Teasley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Cavonza     Arvel    Teasley      seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

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) (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 Teasley 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3