Arthur Woodson v. M. Wright

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999579601-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999539875-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01019-CMH-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999626099].. [15-6313]

Appeal: 15-6313

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6313

ARTHUR WOODSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
M. WRIGHT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01019-CMH-JFA)

Submitted:

July 21, 2015

Decided:

July 23, 2015

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6313

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arthur Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
§ 2253(c)(2) (2012).

28 U.S.C.

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

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
Woodson has not made the requisite showing.
Woodson’s

motions

for

the

appointment

Accordingly, we deny

of

counsel

and

for

certificate of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

a
We

legal

Appeal: 15-6313

Doc: 11

Filed: 07/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3