Alvin Session v. VDOC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [1000028599-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [1000025076-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000036272-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [1000028482-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00582-AJT-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000089127]. Mailed to: Alvin Session LAWRENCEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER 1607 Planters Road Lawrenceville, VA 23868-0000. [17-6118]

Appeal: 17-6118

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6118

ALVIN SESSION,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00582-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin Session, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6118

Doc: 18

Filed: 05/26/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alvin Session 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). 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 Session has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. The motions for preparation
of a transcript at government expense and for appointment of counsel are denied. 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