Court Opinion

ID: 619791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-12-23 19:58:14+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:49.684566
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-7201

STACEY D. FARMER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

G. HINKLE, Chief Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-01384-AJT-JFA)

Submitted:   December 20, 2011             Decided:   December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stacey D. Farmer, Appellant Pro Se.       Joshua Mikell Didlake,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Stacey D. Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       as    untimely        his    28   U.S.C.       § 2254     (2006)

petition.      This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a    certificate       of    appealability.          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 Farmer has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    Farmer’s       motion      for    a     certificate     of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                             2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3