Tommy Graham, Jr. v. Warden Wallens Ridge State

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00922-CMH-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930754]. Mailed to: Tommy Graham, Jr.. [16-6147]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6147 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6147 TOMMY J. GRAHAM, JR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. WARDEN WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00922-CMH-IDD) Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tommy J. Graham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6147 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Tommy J. Graham, Jr., 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. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” See 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 Graham has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 16-6147 Doc: 7 contentions Filed: 09/16/2016 are adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?