Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06946/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06946-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Victor Eugene Vick
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6946

VICTOR EUGENE VICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00346-TSE-TCB)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Eugene Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6946 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Eugene Vick seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying relief on his subsequent 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 

Vick 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: 16-6946 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6946 Doc: 11 Filed: 10/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3