Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07053/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07053-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7053

DE’MARION L. WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Sir, Director, Virginia Dept. of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00358-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

De’Marion Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7053 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

De’Marion L. Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an 

unauthorized, successive petition. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-7053 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7053 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pg: 3 of 3