Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06227/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06227-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Robert F. Smith
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6227

ROBERT F. SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00135-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 22, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert F. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6227 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert F. Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Smith’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2018) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith’s informal brief, we

conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also 

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important 

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that 

brief.”). Smith does not contest the district court’s dispositive ruling that all but the 2018 

parole denial claims were untimely filed and that Smith did not demonstrate that any of the 

claims were properly exhausted. Turning to the merits of the 2018 parole denial claims, 

Smith did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6227 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

of the claims debatable or wrong. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6227 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 3 of 3