Beverly Mangum v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:11-cv-00205-SGW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998812406]. Mailed to: Beverly Mangum and Robert Anderson. [11-7458]

Appeal: 11-7458

Document: 23

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7458

BEVERLY R. MANGUM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:11-cv-00205-SGW)

Submitted:

March 15, 2012

Decided:

March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Beverly Ricardo Mangum, Appellant Pro Se.
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
Virginia, for Appellee.

Robert H. Anderson,
VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7458

Document: 23

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Beverly Ricardo Mangum seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

§ 2254

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Mangum has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 11-7458

Document: 23

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3