Case Name: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-05
Citations: 632 F. App'x 139
Docket Number: No. 15-7258
Parties: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7258.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 5, 2016.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 petition 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 Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Pleasant is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Chesterfield County, Virginia; he is not being detained pending a City of Richmond charge dating back to 2000, contrary to his assertions in this case. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.