Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07876/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07876-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Dominique Jerome Hobbs
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7876

DOMINIQUE JEROME HOBBS,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District 

Judge. (1:15-cv-00559-GBL-JFA)

Submitted: April 8, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominique Jerome Hobbs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7876 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dominique Jerome Hobbs 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. 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 record and conclude that 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7876 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7876 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3