Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06819/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06819-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clark
Appellee
Larry Dean Hooper
Appellant
Carl Manis
Appellee
Virginia Department of Corrections
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6819

LARRY DEAN HOOPER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARK; CARL 

MANIS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-01460-AJT-IDD)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Dean Hooper, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6819 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Dean Hooper seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

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

a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed as 

unnecessary, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 16-6819 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6819 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3