Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06403/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06403-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Michael Keith Holden
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6403

MICHAEL KEITH HOLDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:14-cv-00616-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Keith Holden, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6403 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Keith Holden, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012)

petition, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders 

are 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 

Holden 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 

Appeal: 16-6403 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 16-6403 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3