Daniel Jessee v. Gene Johnson, (4th Cir. 2011)

Status: Not Published

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6346

DANIEL RYAN JESSEE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, VA D.O.C.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00224-jct-mfu)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Ryan Jessee, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Daniel Ryan Jessee seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying 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." 28U.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 Jessee has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.