Erick Sealey v. Harold Clarke , 687 F. App'x 292 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6208
    ERICK SEALEY, a/k/a Wasim Ata Bey,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00663-MSD-DEM)
    Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017
    Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Erick Sealey, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Erick Sealey seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
    § 2254 (2012) 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) (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 Sealey 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 before this court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6208

Citation Numbers: 687 F. App'x 292

Judges: Motz, Duncan, Agee

Filed Date: 4/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024