Paris Whedbee v. Director of the Department


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999933066-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00118-TSE-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000013465]. Mailed to: Paris Mitchell Whedbee; Joseph Christian Obenshain. [16-7188]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7188 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7188 PARIS M. WHEDBEE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00118-TSE-TCB) Submitted: January 19, 2017 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and NIEMEYER January 31, 2017 and WYNN, Circuit Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paris Mitchell Whedbee, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Christian Obenshain, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7188 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/31/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Paris M. Whedbee seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 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 Whedbee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 Appeal: 16-7188 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/31/2017 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?