Dominique Hackley v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6324
    DOMINIQUE ALEXANDER HACKLEY,
    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
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01451-LMB-TCB)
    Submitted: August 31, 2021                                   Decided: September 9, 2021
    Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dominique Alexander Hackley, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dominique Alexander Hackley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
    relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
    Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hackley 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: 20-6324

Filed Date: 9/9/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/9/2021