Court Opinion

ID: 2819855
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-23 19:01:49.595712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:38.646223
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-6313

ARTHUR WOODSON,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

M. WRIGHT, Warden,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01019-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:   July 21, 2015                  Decided:   July 23, 2015

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Arthur Woodson 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

Woodson has not made the requisite showing.           Accordingly, we deny

Woodson’s   motions   for    the   appointment   of    counsel   and   for    a

certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal.                     We

dispense    with   oral     argument   because   the    facts    and   legal

                                       2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3