Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07516/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07516-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Howard Z. Garnett
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7516

HOWARD Z. GARNETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00452-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Z. Garnett, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7516 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard Z. Garnett seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

and denying Garnett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or 

amend that judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 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 

Garnett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Garnett’s motion to 

amend his informal brief to include a newly obtained affidavit,

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

Appeal: 15-7516 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7516 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3