Tavon Pauley v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00714-LMB-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460919]. Mailed to: Pauley. [14-6650]

Appeal: 14-6650

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6650

TAVON L. PAULEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR
HAROLD
Corrections,

W.

CLARKE,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00714-LMB-TCB)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

October 23, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tavon L. Pauley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6650

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tavon L. Pauley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his “Motion to Correct Judicial Error,
Oversight, and Clerical Error” and his “Petition for Writ of
Liberating Exigenis in Itinere,” filed in his habeas proceedings
after his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition was dismissed as
untimely filed.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

See 28

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) (2012).

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 Pauley has not made the requisite showing.

2

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 14-6650

Doc: 13

Filed: 10/23/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

To the extent Pauley seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his § 2254 petition and his first “motion to
correct judicial error, oversight, and clerical error,” we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pauley’s
notice of appeal was not timely filed as to those orders.

3