David Van Wormer v. Harris Diggs, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998602511]. Mailed to: David Van Wormer. [11-6135, 11-6236]

Appeal: 11-6135

Document: 15

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6135

DAVID VAN WORMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

No. 11-6236

DAVID VAN WORMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HARRIS L. DIGGS, JR., Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01265-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:

May 26, 2011

Decided:

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

June 1, 2011

Appeal: 11-6135

Document: 15

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6135

Document: 15

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, David Van Wormer seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ.
P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration

of

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition,
denying his motion to compel production of state court records,
and denying his motions to withdraw his state court guilty plea
and for a new trial.

The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d
363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
not

issue

absent

“a

constitutional right.”

A certificate of appealability will

substantial

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.

3

Slack,

Appeal: 11-6135

Document: 15

In

his

Date Filed: 06/01/2011

informal

briefs,

Page: 4 of 4

Van

Wormer

has

failed

to

address the district court’s reasons for denying the various
motions.
of

the

Therefore, Van Wormer has forfeited appellate review
district

court’s

rulings.

See

4th

Cir.

R.

34(b).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
these appeals.

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.

DISMISSED

4