Kenneth Creamer v. Director, Va. Depart. of Corr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998797015-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00240-TSE-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998864941]. Mailed to: Robert Anderson and Kenneth Creamer. [12-6254]--[Edited 05/31/2012 by CH]

Appeal: 12-6254

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6254

KENNETH FRANK CREAMER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00240-TSE-JFA)

Submitted:

May 24, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 31, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Frank Creamer, Appellant Pro Se.
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
Virginia, for Appellee.

Robert H. Anderson,
VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6254

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Frank

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Kenneth
court’s

order

petition.
or

judge

denying

relief

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

Creamer

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Creamer has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 12-6254

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/31/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3