Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06490/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
John Angelo Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6490

JOHN ANGELO SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00684-JLK-RSB)

Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Angelo Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6490 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Angelo Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing as untimely 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 

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

Smith leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, 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. 

Appeal: 15-6490 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6490 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3