Raymond Bethel, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 13-7615 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7615 RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00013-HEH) Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013 Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Raymond V. Bethel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Bethel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Bethel s motion for counsel. We dispense with We oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3