Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06465/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06465-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Angelo Marcellus Irving
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6465

ANGELO MARCELLUS IRVING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,

District Judge. (3:16-cv-00082-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Marcellus Irving, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6465 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Marcellus Irving seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6465 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6465 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3