Dale L. Sparrow v. Director, Virginia Department

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00220-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999882409]. Mailed to: Dale L. Sparrow. [16-6037]

Appeal: 16-6037

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6037

DALE L. SPARROW,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Roderick C. Young,
Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00220-RCY)

Submitted:

June 30, 2016

Before GREGORY
Circuit Judge.

and

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 8, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale L. Sparrow, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6037

Doc: 8

Filed: 07/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dale L. Sparrow 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 of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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
Sparrow has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-6037

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 07/08/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3