Court Opinion

ID: 4583298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-03 20:00:25.425687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:43:00.300966
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-7158

DARRIS ALTONY NEWSOME,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00781-LO-JFA)

Submitted: October 16, 2020                                  Decided: November 3, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darris Altony Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darris Altony Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice as unauthorized and 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). 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). When, as here,

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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newsome has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newsome’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny his motion for an evidentiary hearing, 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