Maurice Fortune, III v. Mark Herring

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999945855-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999945829-2], denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00586-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000032238].. [16-7299]

Appeal: 16-7299

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7299

MAURICE PATRICK FORTUNE, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARK R. HERRING,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:16-cv-00586-LO-TCB)

Submitted:

February 22, 2017

Decided:

February 28, 2017

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Maurice Patrick Fortune, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7299

Doc: 13

Filed: 02/28/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Maurice

Patrick

Fortune

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

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
Fortune has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, deny the motion for a transcript at government
expense and for a stay, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2

Appeal: 16-7299

Doc: 13

adequately

Filed: 02/28/2017

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3