Levi Springer v. Harold Clarke , 653 F. App'x 208 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-7796
    LEVI SPRINGER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, D.O.C. Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:15-cv-01275-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:   June 23, 2016                 Decided:   June 28, 2016
    Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Levi Springer, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Levi Springer seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing as successive 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
    Springer 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
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-7796

Citation Numbers: 653 F. App'x 208

Judges: Motz, King, Wynn

Filed Date: 6/28/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024