Walter Booker v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999074752-2]. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01478-JCC-TRJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999347086]. Mailed to: Walter Booker. [13-6454]

Appeal: 13-6454

Doc: 23

Filed: 04/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6454

WALTER D. BOOKER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of VA DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01478-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

April 24, 2014

Decided:

April 30, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6454

Doc: 23

Filed: 04/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Walter D. Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

of

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

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) (2012).

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 Booker has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the

appeal

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

contentions

are

Appeal: 13-6454

Doc: 23

adequately

Filed: 04/30/2014

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3