Christopher Cottrell v. Director, Department of Correc

Filing 920090114


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6501 CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?