Vincent Martin v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000007184]. Mailed to: Vincent Martin. [16-7444]

Appeal: 16-7444

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7444

VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
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)

Submitted:

January 17, 2017

Decided:

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7444

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Vincent Lamont Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

untimely

28

U.S.C.

§

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

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
Martin 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: 16-7444

Doc: 14

Filed: 01/20/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3