Robert Earl Tippens, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999667510-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00757-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999738751]. Mailed to: Robert Earl Tippens Jr. BASKERVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER 4150 Hayes Mill Road Baskerville, VA 23915-0000. [15-7475]

Appeal: 15-7475

Doc: 18

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7475

ROBERT EARL TIPPENS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00757-HEH)

Submitted:

January 14, 2016

Decided:

January 20, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Tippens, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Rosemary Virginia
Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7475

Doc: 18

Filed: 01/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert

Earl

Tippens,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition
and motion to reconsider.

The orders are not appealable unless

a

judge

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion 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
Tippens has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tippens’ motion for
transcripts at Government expense, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7475

Doc: 18

contentions

are

Filed: 01/20/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3