Court Opinion

ID: 4257330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-22 19:00:19.293813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:19.907921
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7593

RASHAWN D. SIMMONS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of VA
D.D.L.,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00957-LO-IDD)

Submitted: March 20, 2018                                         Decided: March 22, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashawn Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Rashawn Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. 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)

(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 Simmons has not

made the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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

                                              2