Harry Nie v. Harold Clarke , 583 F. App'x 246 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6704
HARRY NIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00666-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harry Nie, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harry Nie seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motions seeking reconsideration of the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition. He also appeals from the district court’s denial of
his motions to transfer the case and to take judicial notice.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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 Nie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
2
deny Nie’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his
motion to take judicial notice of facts, 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
3