Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07412/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
William Orlando Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7412

WILLIAM ORLANDO SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00295-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Orlando Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7412 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

William Orlando Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 

petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 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) 

(2018). 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) (2018). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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 presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7412 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2