Jarius Phillips v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999414860-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999410964-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00337-AWA-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999462110]. Mailed to: Phillips. [14-6970]

Appeal: 14-6970

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6970

JARIUS DAMAR PHILLIPS,
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.
Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:13-cv-00337-AWA-LRL)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarius Damar Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6970

Doc: 11

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jarius
court’s

order

Damar

Phillips

accepting

the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the

the

district

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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) (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 Phillips has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Phillips’ motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate
of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the
2

Appeal: 14-6970

facts

Doc: 11

and

materials

legal
before

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3