Joseph Ortiz v. Harold Clarke , 692 F. App'x 139 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6236
    JOSEPH ORTIZ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,
    Respondent – Appellee,
    and
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00412-AWA-RJK)
    Submitted: June 20, 2017                                      Decided: June 23, 2017
    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joseph Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph Ortiz seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
    § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.    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 Ortiz 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 presented in the materials before this
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6236

Citation Numbers: 692 F. App'x 139

Judges: Shedd, Wynn, Diaz

Filed Date: 6/23/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024