Arnold DeArmond v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999118109-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00291-RBS-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999204205]. Mailed to: appellant. [13-6713]

Appeal: 13-6713

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6713

ARNOLD LYNN DEARMOND,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00291-RBS-TEM)

Submitted:

September 26, 2013

Decided:

September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnold Lynn DeArmond, Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6713

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Arnold
court’s

order

Lynn

DeArmond

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the
the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely 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

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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 DeArmond has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 13-6713

Doc: 15

Filed: 09/30/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3