Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07624/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Charles Harbison
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7624

CHARLES HARBISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00687-REP)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: May 19, 2016

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7624 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Harbison seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing 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 motion 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 

Harbison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-7624 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2016 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: 15-7624 Doc: 12 Filed: 05/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3