Antonio Townsend v. Harold Clarke ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-7299
    ANTONIO J. TOWNSEND,
    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.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
    District Judge. (2:13-cv-00341-RGD-LRL)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2013             Decided:   November 26, 2013
    Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Antonio Jose Townsend, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio       Jose    Townsend      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 Townsend 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-7299

Filed Date: 11/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021