Case Name: Larry Dean HOOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Harold Clark; Carl Manis, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-21
Citations: 670 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 16-6819
Parties: Larry Dean HOOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Harold Clark; Carl Manis, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Larry Dean HOOPER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Harold Clark; Carl Manis, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-6819
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 31, 2016
Decided: November 21, 2016
Larry Dean Hooper, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Dean Hooper 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 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 Hooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed as unnecessary, 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