Larry Hooper v. Virginia Dept of Correction

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed [999888303-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999884697-2], denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01460-AJT-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999972085]. Mailed to: Larry Hooper. [16-6819]

Appeal: 16-6819

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6819

LARRY DEAN HOOPER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA
MANIS,

DEPARTMENT

OF

CORRECTIONS;

HAROLD

CLARK;

CARL

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01460-AJT-IDD)

Submitted:

October 31, 2016

Decided:

November 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Dean Hooper, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6819

Doc: 11

Filed: 11/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Larry
order

Hooper

dismissing

petition.
or

Dean

judge

as

seeks

untimely

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

§

court’s

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

to

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
Hooper has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to proceed as
unnecessary,

deny

leave

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are
2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 16-6819

Doc: 11

materials

before

Filed: 11/21/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3