Pakastan Gary v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00258-RBS-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999204244]. Mailed to: Gary Pakastan. [13-7216]

Appeal: 13-7216

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7216

PAKASTAN ALGIER GARY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00258-RBS-LRL)

Submitted:

September 26, 2013

Decided:

September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pakastan Algier Gary, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7216

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Pakastan

Algier

Gary

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as
successive.

The

order

is

not

a

circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

appealable

unless

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

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 Gary 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: 13-7216

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 09/30/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3