Court Opinion

ID: 2652901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-12 01:01:04.113413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:59.013590
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-7755

CALVIN PERRY,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00192-JRS)

Submitted:   February 3, 2014              Decided:   February 11, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Lara Kate Jacobs Todd, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Calvin      Perry     seeks    to    appeal    the    district       court’s

order     dismissing          his   successive         28   U.S.C.       § 2254     (2012)

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) (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 Perry 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