Howard White v. Eddie Pearson , 688 F. App'x 217 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7755
    HOWARD WHITE,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    EDDIE PEARSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01491-AJT-MSN)
    Submitted: April 26, 2017                                         Decided: May 5, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Howard White, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Howard White, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
    relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (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 White 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: 16-7755

Citation Numbers: 688 F. App'x 217

Judges: Niemeyer, Traxler, Hamilton

Filed Date: 5/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024