Walter Whitfield v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00511-LMB-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998698078]. Mailed to: Walter Douglas Whitfield. [11-6805]

Appeal: 11-6805

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/12/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6805
WALTER DOUGLAS WHITFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00511-LMB-IDD)
Submitted:

September 13, 2011

Decided:

October 12, 2011

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Douglas Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6805

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/12/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Walter Douglas Whitfield seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 687 (4th
Cir.

2004).

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
debatable

court’s
or

assessment

wrong.

Slack

of

the

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

claims

is

473,

484

U.S.

(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

the

484-85.

conclude

that

We

have

independently

Whitfield

has

not

reviewed

made

the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 11-6805

before

Document: 12

the

court

Date Filed: 10/12/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3