Christopher Cottrell v. Director, Department of Correc

Filing 920090114

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

(2000).

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

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). have independently reviewed the record and conclude We that

Cottrell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we We

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

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. oral argument because the facts and legal

We dispense with contentions are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3