Darris Newsome v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999888326-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999817873-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00449-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999962519]. Mailed to: Darris Newsome. [16-6646]
Appeal: 16-6646
Doc: 19
Filed: 11/04/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6646
DARRIS ALTONY NEWSOME,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00449-LO-TCB)
Submitted:
October 26, 2016
Decided:
November 4, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darris Altony Newsome, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6646
Doc: 19
Filed: 11/04/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Darris Altony Newsome seeks to appeal the district court’s
order
dismissing
untimely.
or
judge
his
28
§ 2254
(2012)
petition
as
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
a
certificate
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
U.S.C.
absent
“a
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
of
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
Newsome has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny Newsome’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
2
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 16-6646
Doc: 19
contentions
are
Filed: 11/04/2016
adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?