UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7439
HENRY J. LUCAS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
S. K. YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00608-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: March 29, 2013 Decided: April 8, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry J. Lucas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry J. Lucas, 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. 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 Lucas has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
*
Assuming, without deciding, that the district court failed
to address some of Lucas’ ineffective assistance of counsel
claims, those claims do not warrant the issuance of a
certificate of appealability.
2
deny Lucas’ motion for the appointment of counsel, 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3