Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06983/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06983-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6983

AARON DOXIE, III, a/k/a Aharon Azaryah Nearyah Hakahan, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, Warden; DIRECTOR HAROLD CLARKE, 

Director, 

Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:13-cv-00505-AWA-DEM) 

Submitted: November 10, 2016 Decided: November 15, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Aaron Doxie, III, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-6983 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Aaron Doxie, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive 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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny Doxie’s applications 

seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 16-6983 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/15/2016 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: 16-6983 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3