David Van Wormer v. Harris Diggs, Jr.

Filing 920100624

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8197 DAVID VAN WORMER, Petitioner Appellant, v. HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 24, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Van Wormer, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Van Wormer seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a substantial constitutional right." 28 U.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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Van Wormer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. state We further deny Van Wormer's motion to vacate his conviction. We dispense with oral argument criminal because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 2 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?