Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07796/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07796-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Clarke
Appellee
Shawn S. Ward
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7796

SHAWN S. WARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:14-cv-00011-HEH)

Submitted: March 17, 2015 Decided: March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn S. Ward, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7796 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn S. Ward 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

Ward has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 14-7796 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7796 Doc: 6 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3