Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07568/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07568-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Brandon Lee Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7568

BRANDON LEE SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior 

District Judge. (3:13-cv-00613-JRS)

Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: June 19, 2015

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-7568 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Brandon Lee Smith 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. 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 

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 

2

Appeal: 14-7568 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

Appeal: 14-7568 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3