Court Opinion

ID: 4029763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-08-30 19:01:16.2026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:09.237574
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-6195

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, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00337-LO-MSN)

Submitted:   August 4, 2016                 Decided:   August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darris Altony Newsome, Appellant Pro Se.       Kathleen Beatty
Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Darris Altony Newsome 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.            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

Newsome has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Newsome’s motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            We

dispense       with      oral   argument    because      the     facts     and    legal

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3