Anthony Belcher v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6282

ANTHONY LEE BELCHER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00517-JCT-RSB)

Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: July 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Lee Belcher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Anthony Lee Belcher seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as

untimely. 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 Belcher 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