Emmanuel Taylor v. Harold Clarke ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6004
    EMMANUEL LEWIS TAYLOR,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00954-LMB-IDD)
    Submitted: April 19, 2018                                         Decided: April 24, 2018
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Emmanuel Lewis Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Emmanuel Lewis Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
    untimely 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 Lewis 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: 18-6004

Filed Date: 4/24/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/24/2018