Corey Horn v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999902744-2] Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00657-MFU-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000010013]. Mailed to: Corey Horn. [16-6849]

Appeal: 16-6849

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/25/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6849

COREY PHILLIP HORN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD
W.
CLARKE,
Corrections,

Director,

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District
Judge. (7:15-cv-00657-MFU-RSB)

Submitted:

January 19, 2017

Decided:

January 25, 2017

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey Phillip Horn, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6849

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/25/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Corey Phillip Horn seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

untimely

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
Horn has not made the requisite showing.
Horn’s

motion

to

appoint

counsel,

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly, we deny

deny

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-6849

Doc: 16

Filed: 01/25/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3