Walter Booker v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motions to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999996713-2], (FRAP 24) [999968746-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00781-JCC-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000033291].. [16-7375]

Appeal: 16-7375

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7375

WALTER D. BOOKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00781-JCC-JFA)

Submitted:

February 24, 2017

Decided:

March 1, 2017

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert H. Anderson, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7375

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Walter D. Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

motion

states

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Booker 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: 16-7375

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/01/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3