Opinion
No. 13-6232
04-23-2013
MELVIN CORNNELL DODSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee.
Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00633-JLK-RSB) Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). 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 Dodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dodson's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, for appointment of counsel, to reverse his conviction, and for 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