William Joseph Gutersloh v. BRIAN WATSON, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7445
WILLIAM JOSEPH GUTERSLOH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN WATSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:10-cv-00083-gec-mfu)
Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Joseph Gutersloh, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William
Franklin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Joseph Gutersloh seeks to appeal the district
court’s 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. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Gutersloh 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --