Cottrell v. Director, Dept of Corrections, (4th Cir. 2009)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 08-6501

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6501

CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:07-cv-00100-HEH)

Submitted: November 18, 2008 Decided: January 14, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T.

Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Christopher Earl Cottrell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cottrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny, as moot, Cottrell's "Motion to Object to District Court's Nonruling on a Certificate of Appealability." We also deny Cottrell's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.