Charles Harbison v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00687-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999827452]. Mailed to: Charles Harbison. [15-7624]

Appeal: 15-7624

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7624

CHARLES HARBISON,
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 Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00687-REP)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

May 19, 2016

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cady Kiyonaga, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. KIYONAGA, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7624

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Harbison seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

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

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Harbison has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7624

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 05/19/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3