Devaughn Jherelle Hall v. Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7424
DEVAUGHN JHERELLE HALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:09-cv-00647-MHL)
Submitted: May 13, 2011 Decided: May 20, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Highland, WASHINGTON & LEE IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP
PROGRAM, Lexington, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene Paul
Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Devaughn Jherelle Hall seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s*
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
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) (2006). 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.
* The parties consented to the exercise of the district
court’s jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c) (2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --