Melvin Dodson v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 13-6232 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6232 MELVIN CORNNELL DODSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cv-00633-JLK-RSB) Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Melvin Cornnell Dodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Melvin Cornnell Dodson seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his petition for a writ of error coram nobis as an unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid 363, v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 Dodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Dodson s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 2 for appointment of counsel, to reverse his conviction, and for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
