UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7332
MARVIN LEON GRIMM, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director VA. Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00593-JRS)
Submitted: March 29, 2012 Decided: April 5, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Leon Grimm, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders
are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2006). 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) (2006). 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 Grimm has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny the motions for a certificate of appealability and for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3