Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07699/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07699-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7699

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, V.D.O.C.,

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-00154-REP-MHL)

Submitted: March 25, 2015 Decided: April 1, 2015

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7699 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and dismissing it 

for lack of jurisdiction. 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 motion 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 

Pleasant 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 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 14-7699 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7699 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/01/2015 Pg: 3 of 3