Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06589/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06589-0/pdf.json

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

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6589

MICHAEL KEITH LAMBERT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00284-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: October 11, 2016 Decided: November 8, 2016

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan S. Mammen, KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6589 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Keith Lambert seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (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 

Lambert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6589 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6589 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3