Court Opinion

ID: 613714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-09-16 00:03:06+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:26.712593
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-6521

LONNIE MCDONOVAN GHOLSON,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00023-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:   September 13, 2011       Decided:   September 15, 2011

Before DAVIS and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. *

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lonnie McDonovan Gholson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

     *
       This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
PER CURIAM:

            Lonnie McDonovan Gholson 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)(A) (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 Gholson 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