Vincent Martin v. Harold Clarke
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) denied [999964726-2]; Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) denied [999959052-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00599-TSE-JFA. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Vincent Martin. [16-7444]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
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-00599-TSE-JFA)
January 17, 2017
January 20, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vincent Lamont Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Vincent Lamont Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Martin has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?