Eugene Schuler v. Harold Clarke , 689 F. App'x 186 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7762
EUGENE PETER SCHULER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director, VDOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01151-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: April 24, 2017 Decided: May 11, 2017
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene Peter Schuler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Peter Schuler seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely 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 Schuler has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Schuler leave to file an amended informal
brief, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, 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