Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06699/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06699-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Bernard Ray Richardson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6699

BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, VDOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, 

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00550-EKD)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6699 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition

and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for 

reconsideration. The orders are 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 

Richardson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Richardson’s motion for a certificate of appealability, 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6699 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 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: 15-6699 Doc: 13 Filed: 09/14/2015 Pg: 3 of 3