Court Opinion

ID: 856751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-03-29 19:15:35.029742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:33.197060
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-8156

CONRAD BURKE,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE, VADOC Director,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00755-LMB-TCB)

Submitted:   March 26, 2013                 Decided:   March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Conrad Burke, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Conrad        Burke   seeks    to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006).            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) (2006).               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 Burke has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny 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

                                           2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3