Marlon Canady v. Jeffery Kiser

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00263-REP-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837140]. Mailed to: Canady. [15-8033]

Appeal: 15-8033

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8033

MARLON CANADY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEFFERY B. KISER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00263-REP-RCY)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Canady, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-8033

Doc: 12

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Marlon Canady seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
(2012).

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
Canady 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