Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07481/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07481-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Kerry Lee Winslow
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7481

KERRY LEE WINSLOW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, 

Magistrate Judge. (3:15-cv-00440-RCY)

Submitted: February 24, 2017 Decided: March 10, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kerry Lee Winslow, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7481 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/10/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kerry Lee Winslow seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 

Winslow has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate 

judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

Appeal: 16-7481 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/10/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7481 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/10/2017 Pg: 3 of 3