Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Christopher Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 16-6470 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6470 Visitors: 29
Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6470 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE JEFFERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00444-GBL-MSN) Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Eugene Jef
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6470


CHRISTOPHER EUGENE JEFFERSON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

COMMONWEALTH,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00444-GBL-MSN)


Submitted:   October 18, 2016             Decided:   October 20, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher Eugene Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.  Aaron Jennings
Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Christopher Eugene Jefferson 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.          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

Jefferson has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                            2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer