Case Name: Adam PELLETIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-26
Citations: 699 F. App'x 264
Docket Number: No. 17-6742
Parties: Adam PELLETIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 264–265

Head Matter:
Adam PELLETIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6742
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 23, 2017
Decided: October 26, 2017
Adam Pelletier, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adam Pelletier seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing as time-barred and partially proeedurally defaulted his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court's order is not ap-pealable 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pelletier has not made the requisite showing. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). 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 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED