Marvin Moody v. Director, Virginia DOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01581-GBL-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999942769]. Mailed to: Marvin Moody. [16-6401]

Appeal: 16-6401

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6401

MARVIN J. MOODY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:14-cv-01581-GBL-TCB)

Submitted:

September 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

October 6, 2016

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dale Reese Jensen, DALE JENSEN, PLC, Staunton, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Elizabeth Catherine Kiernan, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6401

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marvin J. Moody 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
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Moody

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED
2