Christopher Earl Cottrell v. Harold W. Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999993945-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999993905-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999984732-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999975860-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999967454-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00200-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000027935]. Mailed to: Christopher Earl Cottrell RED ONION STATE PRISON 10800 H. Jack Rose Highway P. O. Box 970 Pound, VA 24279-0000. [16-7441]

Appeal: 16-7441

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/22/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7441

CHRISTOPHER EARL COTTRELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:16-cv-00200-HEH-RCY)

Submitted:

February 16, 2017

Decided:

February 22, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Earl Cottrell, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7441

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/22/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Christopher
court’s

order

petition.
judge

Earl

denying

relief

seeks

on

his

to
28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Cottrell

absent

“a

of

See

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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

(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
Cottrell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Cottrell’s motion for a transcript at government expense, deny his
motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 16-7441

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/22/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3