Glen Harrison, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00467-RAJ-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999748889].. [15-7362]
Appeal: 15-7362
Doc: 11
Filed: 02/04/2016
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7362
GLEN HARRISON, JR.,
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. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00467-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted:
January 28, 2016
Decided:
February 4, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Appellant. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-7362
Doc: 11
Filed: 02/04/2016
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Glen Harrison, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order
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.
See
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.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28
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 (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
constitutional right.
a
debatable
claim
of
the
denial
of
a
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Harrison has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?