Gary Broughton v. Harold Clarke , 459 F. App'x 213 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                 UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-7267
    GARY BROUGHTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE,
    Respondent – Appellee,
    and
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
    Judge. (1:10-cv-01355-LO-TCB)
    Submitted:   December 15, 2011                Decided:   December 20, 2011
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Broughton, Appellant Pro Se.    Rosemary Virginia Bourne,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Broughton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues     a     certificate     of    appealability.            See    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A) (2006).          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) (2006).               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 Broughton has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we deny 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-7267

Citation Numbers: 459 F. App'x 213

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Davis

Filed Date: 12/20/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024