James Paul Desper v. John Woodson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999707093-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999701974-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00668-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778162]. Mailed to: Desper. [15-7716]

Appeal: 15-7716

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7716

JAMES PAUL DESPER, a/k/a Jamie Paul Desper,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN WOODSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:14-cv-00668-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Paul Desper, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7716

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Paul

Desper

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying relief on 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.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Desper has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny as moot the motion to use the original record,
and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2

Appeal: 15-7716

Doc: 9

materials

before

Filed: 03/21/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3