Carl Thomas, Jr. v. Virginia Parole Board

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999697101-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00966-CMH-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999764993]. Mailed to: Carl Thomas, Jr.. [15-7551]

Appeal: 15-7551

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7551

CARL THOMAS, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00966-CMH-TCB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

March 1, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7551

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Carl

Thomas,

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Thomas 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: 15-7551

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3