Hugo Jones v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999427525-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00384-AWA-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999497042]. Mailed to: Hugo Jones. [14-7190]

Appeal: 14-7190

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7190

HUGO ROMARE JONES,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director

of

Virginia

Department

of

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-00384-AWA-TEM)

Submitted:

December 16, 2014

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 19, 2014

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugo Romare Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7190

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Hugo Romare Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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 Jones 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
2

Appeal: 14-7190

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/19/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3