Gregory Richardson v. VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998377795-2]. Originating case number: 3:07-cv-00514-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998419283] [10-6835]

Gregory Richardson v. VDOC

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6835 Document: 17

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6835 GREGORY A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; WARDEN OF SUSSEX I STATE PRISON, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00514-REP) Submitted: August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6835 Document: 17

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion a to reconsider. justice See 28 The or orders judge are not a

appealable certificate (2006).

unless of

circuit

issues

appealability.

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Case: 10-6835 Document: 17

Date Filed: 09/07/2010

Page: 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3