Michael Edwards v. G. Holloway

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6889


MICHAEL D. EDWARDS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

G. HOLLOWAY, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01394-LMB-JFA)


Submitted:   October 28, 2014             Decided:   November 5, 2014


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael D. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Michael     D.    Edwards      seeks      to    appeal       the    district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly,

we deny Edwards’ motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.             We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions        are   adequately        presented      in    the



                                              2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3