Court Opinion

ID: 179182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-11-12 18:45:45+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:47.595859
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 10-7117

NERY ARNOLDO SALINAS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

JEFFREY DILLMAN, Warden, Green Rock Correctional Center,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00510-MHL)

Submitted:   October 8, 2010                 Decided:   November 12, 2010

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nery Arnoldo Salinas, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Nery Arnoldo Salinas seeks to appeal the magistrate

judge’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 Salinas has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3