James Mann v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00711-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999033567].. [12-7226]

Appeal: 12-7226

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/31/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7226

JAMES GARLAND MANN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00711-REP)

Submitted:

December 19, 2012

Decided:

January 31, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,
for Appellant. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7226

Doc: 15

Filed: 01/31/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James
court’s

order

petition.

Garland
denying

Mann

relief

seeks
on

to

appeal

the

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

his

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

district

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 Mann 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: 12-7226

Doc: 15

contentions

are

Filed: 01/31/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3