Robert Henson v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999424243-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460089]. Mailed to: Henson. [14-7092]

Appeal: 14-7092

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7092

ROBERT HENSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director

of

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00173-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7092

Doc: 12

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert
order

dismissing

petition.
or

Henson

judge

as

to

untimely

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

§

court’s

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

seeks

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

2