Frederick J. Smith, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6890
FREDERICK J. SMITH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-6962
FREDERICK J. SMITH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00148-REP)
Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013
Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick J. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Frederick J. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
deny Smith’s motions to expand the record and for authentication
of state transcripts. We dispense with oral argument because

-- 3 of 4 --

4
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 4 of 4 --