Joshua Moseley v. Harold Clarke ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7456
    JOSHUA CHARLES LOVELL MOSELEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00040-REP-RCY)
    Submitted: January 23, 2020                                       Decided: January 28, 2020
    Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Joshua Charles Lovell Moseley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing
    his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Moseley has not
    made the requisite showing. We therefore 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: 19-7456

Filed Date: 1/28/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/28/2020