Opinion
No. 13-6919
2013-09-27
MICHAEL C. WEASE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF DOC, Respondent - Appellee.
Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00166-RBS-DEM) Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael C. Wease seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive and unauthorized and dismissing it on that basis, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court's 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 Wease has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wease's application to proceed in forma pauperis, 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