Piper Rountree v. Gene Johnson, (4th Cir. 2011)
Linked as:
Text
Filed: October 7, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6535
(1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)
PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R The Court amends its opinion filed October 5, 2011, as follows: On page 2, second line of text -- the word "his" is corrected to read "her." For the Court - By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor Clerk UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PIPER ANN ROUNTREE, Petitioner - Appellant, v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ) Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011 Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Piper Ann Rountree seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28U.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 Rountree 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.
Sponsored links
