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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6646 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6646 DARRIS ALTONY NEWSOME, Petitioner – Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?