Court Opinion

ID: 4157496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-03 19:02:34.950776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:42.163089
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-2076

DENNIS RAY GRAVES,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:16-cv-01131-JCC-JFA)

Submitted:   March 30, 2017                 Decided:   April 3, 2017

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dennis    Ray       Graves    seeks     to   appeal      the   district      court’s

order construing his petition for a writ of mandamus as a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it as successive

and unauthorized.            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

Graves 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