Keith Sampson v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999971245-2]. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00370-RBS-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000037919]. Mailed to: Keith Sampson. [16-7398]

Appeal: 16-7398

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7398

KEITH SAMPSON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:15-cv-00370-RBS-DEM)

Submitted:

February 28, 2017

Decided:

March 8, 2017

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Sampson, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7398

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith Sampson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 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
Sampson 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: 16-7398

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3