Michael Edwards v. G. Holloway

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999376705-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01394-LMB-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999469626]. Mailed to: Michael Edwards. [14-6889]

Appeal: 14-6889

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6889

MICHAEL D. EDWARDS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
G. HOLLOWAY, Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01394-LMB-JFA)

Submitted:

October 28, 2014

Decided:

November 5, 2014

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael D. Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6889

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael

D.

Edwards

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Edwards’ motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-6889

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 11/05/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3