Robert Herring v. Harold Clarke
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00326-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000044914]. Mailed to: Robert Herring. [16-6685]
Appeal: 16-6685
Doc: 10
Filed: 03/20/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6685
ROBERT MICHAEL HERRING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00326-JRS)
Submitted:
March 3, 2017
Decided:
March 20, 2017
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Michael Herring, Appellant Pro Se.
Eugene Paul Murphy,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6685
Doc: 10
Filed: 03/20/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Michael Herring seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.
The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate
(2012).
of
appealability.
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
Herring 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
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?