Paul Rejuney v. Chesapeake Circuit Court
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00194-HEH-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Paul Rejuney. [16-7369]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
CHESAPEAKE CIRCUIT COURT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
February 23, 2017
February 28, 2017
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Rejuney, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Paul Rejuney seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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 (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
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Rejuney has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?