Court Opinion

ID: 2644177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-26 19:29:21.269188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:55.448825
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-7224

LARRY O’NEIL CANADY,

                       Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                       Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-00818-LO-JFA)

Submitted:   November 21, 2013             Decided:   November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry O’Neil Canady, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Larry        O’Neil    Canady       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.                           See 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 Canady has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny Canady’s 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

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3