Daniel Mason v. Earl Barksdale

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999173131-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999167755-2] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00003-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999261720]. Mailed to: Mason. [13-7096]

Appeal: 13-7096

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7096

DANIEL P. MASON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
EARL BARKSDALE, Warden, Dillwyn Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00003-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

November 25, 2013

Decided:

December 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel P. Mason, Appellant Pro Se.
Aaron Jennings Campbell,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7096

Doc: 12

Filed: 12/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel P. Mason 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

the

district

court’s

assessment

claims debatable or wrong.”
484

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

of

the

constitutional

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
v.

Cockrell,

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 Mason has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Mason’s 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: 13-7096

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 12/18/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3