Larry Smith v. Harold Clarke , 701 F. App'x 276 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6972
    LARRY WAYNE SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:17-cv-00335-GEC-RSB)
    Submitted: November 16, 2017                                Decided: November 21, 2017
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry Wayne Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry Wayne Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. 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 Smith 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6972

Citation Numbers: 701 F. App'x 276

Judges: Duncan, Wynn, Thacker

Filed Date: 11/13/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024