Robert Winslow, Jr. v. Director of VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999219359-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999189537-2] Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00407-NKM-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999265988]. Mailed to: Robert Winslow. [13-7413]

Appeal: 13-7413

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/24/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7413

ROBERT LOUIS WINSLOW, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00407-NKM-RSB)

Submitted:

December 19, 2013

Decided:

December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Louis Winslow, Jr.,
Harris, Assistant Attorney
Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
General, Richmond,

Susan Mozley
Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7413

Doc: 13

Filed: 12/24/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Louis

Winslow,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

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 Winslow has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Winslow’s motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7413

Doc: 13

contentions

are

Filed: 12/24/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3