Frederick Smith, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 13-6890 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6890 FREDERICK J. SMITH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent -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: Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. August 27, 2013 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick J. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Appellee. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frederick J. Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and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. appealable unless certificate of (2006). a circuit justice appealability. See 28 The orders are not or judge U.S.C. issues a § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. 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 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 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
