Court Opinion

ID: 4102105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-23 21:00:58.538344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:38.570427
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 16-6525

TONY BRYAN SMITH,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00191-JCC-IDD)

Submitted:   October 31, 2016              Decided:   November 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Bryan Smith, Appellant Pro Se.        Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

      Tony Bryan Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on 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

Smith has not made the requisite showing.                   Moreover, we will not

review claims raised for the first time on appeal.                          See In re

Under Seal, 749 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2014).                       Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

                                            2
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

                                  3