Willie Loyd, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6542

WILLIE SANFORD LOYD, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; JAMES A. CALES, JR., Judge;
MORTON V. WHITLOW, Judge; BEN WRIGHT, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-01327-TSE-TRJ)

Submitted: July 17, 2012 Decided: July 31, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Sanford Loyd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Willie Sanford Loyd, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (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 Loyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny Loyd’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

for a transcript, deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED