Charles Riner v. Lisa Edwards, No. 08-8158 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8158 CHARLES DOUGLAS RINER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LISA EDWARDS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00455-JCT-MFU) Submitted: July 16, 2009 Decided: July 28, 2009 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Douglas Riner, Jeffrey, III, Assistant for Appellee. Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles court s order petition. Douglas denying Riner relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. absent constitutional reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice § 2253(c)(1) (2006). prisoner district § 2254 or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue the a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that district of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Riner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Riner s motions for appointment of counsel. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We deny We dispense with legal before contentions the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.