Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07835/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07835-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Jeffrey A. Pleasant
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7835

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 14-7847

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00144-REP-RCY; 3:14-cv-00266-REP-RCY)

Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 14-7835 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7835 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

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 records and conclude 

that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing in either 

appeal. Accordingly, we deny Pleasant’s applications to proceed 

in forma pauperis, deny certificates of appealability, and 

dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 14-7835 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7835 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/28/2015 Pg: 4 of 4