UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7147
ABEL BRIZUELA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00799-TSE-JFA)
Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 25, 2016
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Abel Brizuela 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. 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
Brizuela has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Brizuela’s 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