David Edwin Woodfin v. Henry Ponton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999694711-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00663-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723277]. Mailed to: Woodfin. [15-7107]

Appeal: 15-7107

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7107

DAVID EDWIN WOODFIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HENRY PONTON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00663-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

December 17, 2015

Decided:

December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Edwin Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III,
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Richmond,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7107

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Edwin Woodfin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

untimely filed.

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition

as

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

See 28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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
Woodfin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 15-7107

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3