Jeff Washington v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999358801-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999358795-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999358801-3] Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00526-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385646]. Mailed to: Washington. [14-6335]

Appeal: 14-6335

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6335

JEFFREY FRANKLIN WASHINGTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:13-cv-00526-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Franklin Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,
Appellee.

Susan Mozley
Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6335

Doc: 13

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey

Franklin

Washington

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition as successive.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
See

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that

Washington

Accordingly,
counsel

and

we

has
deny

for

not

made

Washington’s

“Humanitarian

the
motions

requisite
for

‘Electronic

showing.

appointment
Ankle

of

Bracelet’

Parole-Type Release,” deny a certificate of appealability, and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

2