Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06135/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06135-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Willie Coley
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6135

WILLIE COLEY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00120-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: March 15, 2016 Decided: March 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Coley, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6135 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 

 * This case is back before us following a limited remand for 

a determination as to the timeliness of Coley’s notice of 

appeal. The district court determined that Coley gave his 

notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on January 16, 

2015, which makes it timely under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).

Appeal: 15-6135 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Coley 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6135 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3