Mark Kersey v. Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999842091-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999873697-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999873680-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00133-TSE-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999987585]. Mailed to: Mark Kersey SUSSEX I STATE PRISON 24414 Musselwhite Drive Waverly, VA 23891-1111. [16-6751]

Appeal: 16-6751

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6751

MARK KERSEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEITH DAVIS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00133-TSE-MSN)

Submitted:

December 6, 2016

Decided:

December 15, 2016

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Kersey, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6751

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Kersey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

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 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
Kersey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Kersey’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for a copy of
the transcript at government expense, and leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

2

Appeal: 16-6751

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

3