Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07906/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07906-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7906

DEMOND WAYNE SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARK, Director of the Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00134-REP)

Submitted: May 14, 2015 Decided: May 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ben Gunlicks, GUNLICKS LAW, L.C., Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7906 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Demond Wayne Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and deny the motion for appointment of 

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 14-7906 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7906 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3