From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shortt v. Director

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6465 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)

Opinion

No. 17-6465

06-23-2017

GARY SHORTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.

Gary Shortt, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:16-cv-00017-JPJ-RSB) Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gary Shortt, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Gary Shortt seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 Shortt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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


Summaries of

Shortt v. Director

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Jun 23, 2017
No. 17-6465 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)
Case details for

Shortt v. Director

Case Details

Full title:GARY SHORTT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 23, 2017

Citations

No. 17-6465 (4th Cir. Jun. 23, 2017)