Derek Curtis v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998932985-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998960262-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00580-CMH-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999004889]. Mailed to: appellant. [12-7511]

Appeal: 12-7511

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7511

DEREK CURTIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; CITY OF PETERSBURG,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00580-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

December 13, 2012

Decided:

December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7511

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Derek

Curtis

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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 Curtis has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Curtis’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-7511

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 12/18/2012

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3