Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06604/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06604-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Jonathan Lee Graham
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6604

JONATHAN LEE GRAHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (7:14-cv-00085-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Lee Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6604 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Lee Graham 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 

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

Graham’s motion for 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 

Appeal: 15-6604 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/11/2015 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: 15-6604 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 3