Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06525/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06525-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Tony Bryan Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6525

TONY BRYAN SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00191-JCC-IDD)

Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Bryan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6525 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Tony Bryan Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on 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 

Smith has not made the requisite showing. Moreover, we will not 

review claims raised for the first time on appeal. See In re 

Under Seal, 749 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 16-6525 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6525 Doc: 23 Filed: 11/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3