Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06686/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06686-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Jack Randall Crabtree
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6686

JACK RANDALL CRABTREE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:16-cv-00169-MFU-RSB)

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

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Randall Crabtree, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6686 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jack Randall Crabtree seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition because he 

failed to exhaust his state remedies. 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 

Crabtree has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny 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 contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6686 Doc: 13 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: 16-6686 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3