Morris Randall, Jr. v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999725570-2]. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00562-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999827432]. Mailed to: Morris Lee Randall, Jr. [15-7761]

Appeal: 15-7761

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7761

MORRIS LEE RANDALL, JR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Dept. of Corrections,
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-00562-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

March 31, 2016

Decided:

May 19, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Morris Lee Randall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7761

Doc: 13

Filed: 05/19/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Morris
court’s

Lee

order

petition.

Randall,

denying

Jr.,

relief

seeks
on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

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
Randall has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny Randall’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-7761

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 05/19/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3