Joshua Horton v. Harold Clarke ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-6966
    JOSHUA LEE HORTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00004-LO-MSN)
    Submitted: November 21, 2019                                Decided: November 26, 2019
    Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joshua Lee Horton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua L. Horton 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 Horton 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: 19-6966

Filed Date: 11/26/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2019