Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06751/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith Davis
Appellee
Mark Kersey
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6751

MARK KERSEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KEITH DAVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00133-TSE-MSN)

Submitted: December 6, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Kersey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6751 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Kersey 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

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

Kersey’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for a copy of 

the transcript at government expense, and leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 16-6751 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6751 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 3