Mark Bedford v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:12-cv-00411-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999165659]. Mailed to: Bedford. [13-6289]

Appeal: 13-6289

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6289

MARK I. BEDFORD,
Petitioner – Appellee,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:12-cv-00411-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

July 30, 2013

Decided:

August 5, 2013

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Ivan Bedford, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson Vorhis,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6289

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Ivan Bedford 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

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 Bedford has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6289

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 08/05/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3