Court Opinion

ID: 3167273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-05 20:00:50.012151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:32.741560
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-6870

JEREMY JOSEPH ROSS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DIRECTOR DEPT OF CORRECTIONS OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01356-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:   December 29, 2015            Decided:   January 5, 2016

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy Joseph Ross, Appellant Pro Se.       Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jeremy Joseph Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on 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

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

Ross’ motions for 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

                                           2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3