Rashawn Simmons v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000214689-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability [1000204293-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00957-LO-IDD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000262174]. Mailed to: Rashawn Simmons. [17-7593]

Appeal: 17-7593

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/22/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7593

RASHAWN D. SIMMONS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Dir. of VA
D.D.L.,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00957-LO-IDD)

Submitted: March 20, 2018

Decided: March 22, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashawn Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7593

Doc: 14

Filed: 03/22/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Rashawn Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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
(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 Simmons has not
made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2